Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Voluntary Schools (Status)

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the difficulty felt by the managers of voluntary schools in making application for aided status within six months of the receipt of notice of the making of the school development plan, as required by the Education Act, 1944, owing to the uncertainty of the date when new works at the schools can be carried out, and the present difficulty of estimating the cost of such works; and whether he will consider extending the time within which application for aided status may be made or taking such steps as may be necessary to relieve these difficulties.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am aware of the difficulty and it is to see whether there is any possibility of meeting it within the framework of the Education Acts that I am consulting with representatives of the denominations.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the discussions of which he has spoken these managers are being called upon to accept financial obligations which far exceed any estimate that could have been made in 1944?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is one of the things that I am not likely to be allowed to forget.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when these discussions are likely to reach a conclusion?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I cannot. I am waiting for a reply to representations which I have already made to them.

School Governors and Managers (Powers)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Somerset Education Committee that divisional executives be discontinued and that the powers of school governors and managers be increased; and whether he will make a statement on his policy in this matter both in Somerset and elsewhere.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have seen Press reports of this recommendation, which has still to be considered by the county council as local education authority. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 4 of Circular 210, of which I am sending him a copy.

Teachers (Exchange)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education what is the cost on balance of the exchange of British teachers against American teachers, in view of the fact that the American teachers spend money in this country.

Mr. Tomlinson: While it is no doubt true that, on balance, these exchanges with the U.S.A. represent some net dollar gain to this country, I am unable to give any accurate estimate of the amount owing to the unknown factors involved.

Mr. Hollis: If the right hon. Gentleman admits that they represent a net dollar gain to this country, why did he tell the House last week that the numbers were being cut down because of the cost?

Mr. Tomlinson: Because the net dollar gain does not affect the cost to the Estimate that I have to present to this House, and which has to be cut down to meet the requirements of the situation.

School Certificate (Examinations)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that the school certificate examination can no longer be held at the end of the summer term, it can be held at the end of the Lent term, and the school year come to an end at Easter.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would hesitate to make such a fundamental change without consulting the other interests concerned, including the schools and


universities. In fact, the problem of the date of the certificate examinations was reviewed by the Secondary School Examinations Council in connection with their recent report, and the arrangements now in force are based on what they recommended.

Mr. Hollis: While I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must consult the schools—it is proper that he should do so—may I ask him whether he will consult them? I am not challenging the change of date, but may it not bring about the great danger that the last half of the summer term may be wasted?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am prepared to explore the question further, but the difficulty is that what suits the schools does not always suit the universities.

Personal Case

Major Howard Johnson: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that a female school teacher who, after service in excess of 20 years, is forced to resign due to the need to look after her aged and infirm dependants, forfeits all right to a pension; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this hardship.

Mr. Tomlinson: The conditions under which teachers may qualify for pension are laid down in the Teachers' Superannuation Acts and could be altered only by further legislation. If the hon. and gallant Member will inform me of the name of the teacher in question, I will have her case examined and will write to him.

Playground Facilities, London

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied that the playing ground facilities for secondary schools in London is adequate, in view of the number of such schools which have few or no such facilities; and, if not, what steps he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Tomlinson: The inadequacy of playground and playing field facilities for London secondary schools is well known to me, and to the local education authority on whom falls the primary responsibility to see that they are made adequate. The authority's development plan, which I recently approved, includes proposals

which, when carried out, will substantially increase the facilities.

Brigadier Smyth: Would the right hon. Gentleman realise that lack of playing space in London has caused acute anxiety to those concerned with the education of children and is generally regarded as a contributory cause to the present increase of juvenile delinquency?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, but the impossibility of providing playing fields in a built-up area, where there is not a scrap of land on which to establish one, presents itself to everybody. That is the reason why, in the proposals which have been put forward, playing fields are to be provided on the outskirts.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in many built-up areas opencast coal getting prevents open spaces being provided for schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have not heard of any in London.

Size of Classes

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Minister of Education what long-term plans he is making to reduce the size of classes, particularly in primary schools.

Mr. Tomlinson: A reduction in the size of classes depends on the availability of an adequate supply of teachers and of school accommodation. For some years to come our main efforts must be directed to providing sufficient accommodation and teachers to meet the needs of the rising school population, but I am constantly seeking to improve the ratio of pupils to teachers. In fact, in January, 1950, this was estimated to be 27.1 compared with 29.4 just before the war.

Brigadier Smyth: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem will almost certainly get worse during the next three years?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I would not.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the difficulty is now more one of shortage of accommodation than of shortage of teachers?

Mr. Tomlinson: We are attempting to match the provision of teachers with the provision of accommodation, and up to now we are meeting the requirements.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the problem has been aggravated by the cuts in the capital investment programme last autumn?

Mr. Tomlinson: The cuts in the capital investment programme have not yet affected the situation one iota.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he will have a sufficient inflow into the teaching profession during the next three years to meet the rising school population?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I think so.

Training College Students (Medical Examination)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that doctors' fees for applicants for establishment in the Civil Service are paid by the Civil Service Commissioners whereas similar fees for potential school teachers are paid by the candidates; and whether he will consider amending his Department's practice to accord with that of the Civil Service Commissioners in view of the hardship caused to candidates from poor families.

Mr. Tomlinson: Students who have completed their training and are ready for employment are generally examined free of charge. Medical examination at the stage of entry into college is on rather a different footing and while it is possible that the arrangements for examination at this stage may be revised, I can give no undertaking that it will be possible to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Channon: Is the Minister aware that this practice causes considerable hardship to a number of people who are already badly off?

Mr. Tomlinson: If it causes considerable hardship, it is strange that I do not hear about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Pottery Industry

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now considered the need for the formation of a pottery industrial development council; the terms upon which it would function;

its composition; and when it is proposed that it should hold its first meeting.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am still not in a position to make any statement about this matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will cause great disappointment among the members of the National Society of Pottery Workers? If he cannot take steps to set up such a council, will he consider calling together the whole industry with a view to considering what further steps can be taken to improve the present position?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to take action in this matter soon.

Newsprint

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he anticipates being able to increase the amount of paper allowed in the production of local weekly newspapers.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), on 28th March. Since then the Newsprint Rationing Committee has, I understand, decided to continue the present extra page until 1st July

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that trade is being hampered considerably because of the practice of using A and B editions for small advertisements, which means that the advertisers get only half the circulation? It is doing a great deal of damage to local trade.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has allowed periodicals an unlimited share of the available newsprint while supplies to newspapers are still rationed strictly; and if, in fairness to the newspapers, he will allow them to use paper other than newsprint if they desire to increase the size of newspapers.

Mr. H. Wilson: The amount of newsprint for periodicals is not unlimited. Its use for all purposes is still subject to licence and the amount allowed for periodicals is, in fact, small. Newspapers may use paper other than newsprint if they so wish, but available supplies would not be sufficient to permit of any general increase in the size of newspapers.

Mr. Hurd: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the latest figures of newsprint consumption, which show that periodicals like "The Radio Times" are now taking up to 3,000 tons a week out of a total of 14,000 tons? Is he satisfied that there will be enough newsprint for daily and weekly newspapers to fulfil their proper functions?

Mr. Wilson: The amount of additional newsprint reserved for periodicals in the period following the decontrol of periodicals is only 5,000 tons, and not all of this may be licensed. In fact, 17,000 tons extra are required for newspapers to maintain a seven-page newspaper.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the granting of these licences is subject to confirmation or otherwise by this House, or is this a further example of the dictatorship of the Socialist Government?

Mr. Wilson: The point of the Question by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was that newspapers were in considerable trouble following the decontrol of periodicals.

Wool Cloth (Price)

Mr. Lionel Heald: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that trade is being hampered and supplies of clothing to the public held up by the refusal of his department to make a general order increasing the ceiling prices of utility wool cloth garments, notwithstanding the effect of devaluation in raising the price of imported wool by 33⅓ per cent. or more; by what authority, and for what purpose, he requires each individual manufacturer to apply for a special making-up order; and by what authority, and for what purpose, he requires the ceiling prices fixed by such special making-up orders to be treated as confidential and not to be divulged.

Mr. H. Wilson: I apologise for the length of this answer, which has to deal with a number of questions. There has been no recent increase in the maximum prices for the various specifications of utility wool cloth, and the question of raising the maximum prices for garments made from such cloths does not therefore arise.
The manufacture of utility garments is controlled by the Utility Mark and

Apparel and Textiles (General Provisions) Order, 1947, (S.R. & O. 1947 No. 2642). The Board of Trade have made a series of general Orders, which are published as Statutory Instruments, authorising the manufacture of particular garments from specified utility cloths. These Orders also specify the manufacturers' maximum prices.
If a manufacturer wishes to make up a utility garment from a utility cloth not so specified, or from a non-utility cloth (e.g. an imported wool cloth), he may apply to the Board for special authority which can be given in the form of an Order as provided by the Utility Mark Order. In effect, it is a licence to use the particular cloth to manufacture specified utility garments. Such an Order also provides the manufacturer's maximum price for any garments to which it relates. As such an Order is addressed to a named person it is not published but it is in no way confidential. These individual or special Orders, like the published Statutory Instruments, are made under Defence Regulations 55 and 55AB.

Mr. Heald: Is not the short answer that the object of requiring the prices not to be divulged is to prevent the public from appreciating the effect of devaluation?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. Not at all. This has been the position long before and since devaluation. So far as the general orders are concerned, the public are in a position to know what the prices are.

Softwood

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if in view of the misunderstandings that persist after two years of Departmental negotiation over the decontrol of softwood, he will meet the leaders of the trade in a fresh effort to resolve the outstanding problems.

Mr. H. Wilson: While I have not yet been able to agree to the reversion of softwood to private trade, I know of no misunderstandings between my Department and the trade as to the reasons which prevent this reversion. Discussions on the outstanding problems are continuing, but the outcome of the discussions will also be affected by price trends overseas.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister answer the Question, which was whether he will meet the leaders of the softwood trade to try to resolve these misunderstandings which are still quite obvious from answers he has given recently in the House?

Mr. Wilson: I shall be prepared to consider that.

Tariffs

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the heavy increases in duty which have been imposed on certain goods entering the United States of America, as indicated in the Board of Trade Journal of 11th March, what action he will take within the terms of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade to secure a reduction in these duties.

Mr. H. Wilson: A multilateral tariff conference under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will begin at Torquay in September, 1950, and it is the intention that the United Kingdom should then negotiate with the United States for reductions over a wide area of the United States tariff. My Department is already in consultation with United Kingdom industry about the reductions to be sought.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Cannot the President of the Board of Trade do something before next September to stop the increase in these tariffs, which is up to 110 per cent. ad valorem?

Mr. Wilson: The increases to which the hon. Member refers are in items which have not been bound—that is, agreed not to be increased—under previous trade agreements.

Mr. Russell: Are not these increases contrary to the whole spirit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was meant to reduce tariffs and not increase them?

Mr. Wilson: It is the desire of all of us in this House to see that tariffs are reduced, and some reductions have been achieved, but these items were not covered by the General Agreements or by other trade agreements.

Premises, Gorton (Rateable Value)

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the rateable value of that part of the former Crossley Works at Gorton at present occupied by the Raw Cotton Commission; and what rent was paid by the Raw Cotton Commission for the building in each of the last three years.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Raw Cotton Commission is entirely responsible for such matters of its own administration. I understand, however, that the premises in question are now owned by the Commission.

Film, "The Chance of a Lifetime"

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet issued a direction to the Odeon theatre circuit as to dates on which they must show the film "The Chance of a Lifetime," in London and the provinces; and what those dates are.

Mr. H. Wilson: The direction is being issued today. The film will be shown at certain leading central London cinemas in the weeks beginning 27th April and 4th June respectively, and at the other theatres of the Odeon circuit at various dates thereafter, starting in North-West London on 12th June.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he could persuade the Rank Organisation to show this film a little earlier? It is getting dangerously close to the summer months. Is he aware that the objective of the Rank Organisation in showing it during the summer is to lose money on it?

Mr. Wilson: I think my hon. Friend is a little over-suspicious in this matter. The arrangements for showing the film have been worked out between the Rank Organisation and the distributors of the film, and I understand that the Rank Organisation were perfectly willing, if the distributors had so desired, that it should be shown in the autumn and not the summer.

Census of Production (Information)

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now consider the desirability of laying an


Order before Parliament under Section 9 (3) of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, to impose more rigorous conditions regarding the confidential treatment of information received under the Census of Production and, in particular, to clarify conditions under which such information will be passed on by him to other Government Departments.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. I am satisfied that in practice the confidential treatment of information received under a Census of Production is ensured by the provisions of Section 9 (i) of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. I realise the importance of safeguarding the position of individual businesses. Particulars relating to them have not on any occasion been disclosed to other Departments, and would not, in fact, be disclosed, save in a very exceptional case where summary figures for a group of firms would not serve the purpose.

Mr. Higgs: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is those exceptional cases which trouble people, and would he not derive great advantage if he could outline in black and white, so that everybody could see it, the circumstances in which he would be persuaded to take such action?

Mr. Wilson: I am prepared to give this assurance to the hon. Gentleman, that permission for such additional work in such exceptional cases could only be given if I were satisfied that the information disclosed could not be used to the firm's disadvantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the procedure and prerequisites necessary to enable a foreigner to secure naturalisation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): An applicant for naturalisation must have the qualifications laid down in the British Nationality Act, 1948. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the instructions which set out the procedure for submitting applications.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the increasing menace to this country of Communist infiltration will the Home Secretary tighten up procedure? May I write to him again after I have read the pamphlet he is sending me?

Mr. Ede: I do not accept the premise outlined in that supplementary question, but I am always happy to receive communications from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. William: Can the Minister tell us how long it takes before a German can be naturalised, because Germans are still bound to work in agriculture until they can get their naturalisation through?

Mr. Ede: They have to be resident in this country for five years.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long this naturalisation procedure is taking at present, because there was serious delay at one time?

Mr. Ede: That delay disappeared about a couple of years ago. Now the procedure goes through quite normally, and does not take long. I should think that most applications can be dealt with within six months of being received.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Special Branch of Scotland Yard to submit a report to him on all persons applying for naturalisation and their sponsors.

Mr. Ede: I see no need for any change in the present arrangements, under which detailed reports on applications are furnished by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where the applicant lives in London and by the local chief officer of police where the applicant lives elsewhere.

Sir W. Smithers: Are these reports sent to the Home Secretary personally? Why will the right hon. Gentleman not tighten up the regulations? When will the Government realise the real danger of Communism in this country?

Mr. Ede: The reports are sent to the appropriate officers of my Department. All cases which involve any doubt come to me personally. I think that the strength of Communism in this country can rightly be judged by the votes polled


by Communist candidates at the General Election.

Hon. Members: No.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken from a security point of view to ensure that the 100,000 aliens who came to this country in the last five years were not of a type likely to take action damaging to this country.

Mr. Ede: The aliens admitted to this country for residence during the last five years were subject to a security check. It would not be in the public interest to give details of the measures taken.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Home Secretary aware that he is under a major delusion if he thinks that the loss of seats to the Communists in this House has weakened the Communist effort? They are working harder than ever underground.

Mr. Ede: I think I have quite as good means of judging that—

Sir W. Smithers: No.

Mr. Ede: —as the hon. Member, and I do not think that his exaggerated fears are justified by the facts.

Mr. Pannell: Is the Home Secretary aware that the efforts of the Communist Party resulted in at least four more seats for the other side at the General Election?

Oral Answers to Questions — VOTING (IMPERSONATION)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the penalty for impersonation when voting is unnecessarily harsh; and if he will introduce amending legislation which will ensure that for a first offence the punishment shall be limited to a fine.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Brigadier Medlicott: As millions of people did not bother to vote at all, is it not a little hard that misplaced enthusiasm should be so heavily punished? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that the punishments for these offences have varied enormously from a fine of £5 to three months' imprisonment? Is it not unsatis-

factory that there should be such heavy punishment for what must, in essence, be the same offence?

Mr. Ede: I regret that any Member of this House should regard impersonation as a matter for jest. To call personation misplaced enthusiasm is thoroughly to delude the public about the nature of this offence. The courts have a discretion, and even these offences vary in turpitude, so I think it wise to leave a discretion but still to leave the maximum penalty sufficient to indicate the opinion of this House about this offence.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister not aware that there is feeling that it cannot be just that an offence which must, in essence, be the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—is capable of bringing upon the offender either a light fine or else quite a heavy sentence of imprisonment?

Mr. Ede: There is feeling about that with regard to every offence, especially on the part of those who are convicted and suffer the maximum penalty.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that more recruits for the special constabulary are needed in the London area, he will reconsider the age limit which at present bars any volunteer under 30 from being accepted, however suitable he may be in all other respects.

Mr. Ede: A lower age limit of 30 was fixed for the Civil Defence Services in connection with the present recruiting campaign in order to encourage men in the lower age groups to volunteer for the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces, and it was decided to apply the same limit in the appeal for special constables which formed part of the general campaign.

Mr. Brooke: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that a young man under 30 may now be accepted for the special constabulary?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think the duty of a young man under 30, who has spare time, is to join the Territorial Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS, CARLISLE

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the increase in proceedings and convictions for drunkenness in Carlisle from 35 proceedings and 30 convictions in 1948 to 68 and 64, respectively, for 1949 are higher than the average increases throughout the country; and what steps he is taking in view of these facts.

Mr. Ede: Over a period of years Carlisle in the matter of convictions for drunkenness has a favourable record compared with other county boroughs of similar characteristics and population. It is true that in 1949 the figures in Carlisle showed a considerable increase over those for 1948, but the figures for 1948 were themselves comparatively on the low side. The whole situation has recently been reviewed by the licensing justices in consultation with the Chief Constable and the general manager at Carlisle, and I do not think that any special steps are called for on my part.

Mr. Remnant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period when his Department published statistics in connection with Carlisle, the State management area was never in the better half of the 85 county boroughs? In view of that, and the figures I have given, will the Home Secretary agree that the State management system is no more successful than any other system in establishing that standard of sobriety which we all desire?

Mr. Ede: It has to be borne in mind that the State management brewery supplies beer of a slightly higher specific gravity than beers supplied by the ordinary brewers. I am certain of this, that the system has worked well and that it is not fair to compare last year with one of the lowest years.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of "characteristics" within the context of his first answer?

Mr. Ede: The kind of occupation and the number of people who live in what might be called residential centres in a district, the prevalence of clubs, and so on.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it significant that this increase

in drunkenness in Carlisle coincided with the passage of the Licencing Bill last year, and is probably due to the customers in the State public houses getting drunk in sympathy with the forthcoming fate of those in the new towns?

Mr. Ede: No; the curious thing is that nearly all the arrests for drunkenness take place after 11 o'clock at night, and that public houses under the State management system close at 10 o'clock. It would appear that the drunkenness is derived from some other source.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does the State beer take an hour to work?

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not more likely that in this case the increase in drunkenness was among people from outside, who went in to see what it was like and could not take the strong beer?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Contraception (Advice)

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Minister of Health under what Regulations under the National Health Service doctors in the service are precluded from giving to patients who apply for it information and advice about methods of contraception.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): There is nothing whatever in the Regulations to preclude this. Nor, however, is there any obligation on the doctor to do it unless he considers it necessary for purposes of medical treatment.

Mr. Thurtle: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a doctor in the National Health Service is justified in refusing to give this information on conscientious grounds?

Mr. Bevan: It is not my practice to interfere with the advice the doctor considers he should give his patient. I think it would be most unfortunate if we tried to intervene between doctor and patient in matters of this sort.

Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is on record that a National Health doctor refused to give this information on conscientious grounds, and then proceeded to offer to treat the patient as a private patient?

Mr. Bevan: If that were the case, I think it would be very naughty indeed on the part of the doctor as he could not then be refusing on conscientious grounds, but on financial grounds.

Kingston Hospital Committee (Consultations)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health on what date direct consultation took place between the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board and the Kingston Group Management Committee on the subject of and prior to the recent decision of the Board not to reappoint the chairman and three members of the committee; and whether he is satisfied that the provisions as to consultation of Part II of the Third Schedule of the National Health Service Act, 1946, were complied with.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Regional Board wrote to the Management Committee on 29th December, 1949, and the Management Committee replied on 16th January, 1950. I see no reason to doubt that the provisions of the Act were complied with.

Ophthalmic Opticians

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to employ ophthalmic opticians who are not ophthalmic medical practitioners in the National Health Service; whether he is aware of the concern among ophthalmic opticians that they are in danger of losing their livelihood; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevan: I assume the hon. Member has in mind the hospital eye service. Forty-eight ophthalmic opticians are already employed whole or part-time, and others will be engaged as the service develops.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ophthalmic opticians are apprehensive that they will be squeezed out of existence in view of the fact that only ophthalmic medical practitioners are to be employed in the Health Service?

Mr. Bevan: The ophthalmic opticians are aware of the situation. They know that what is in existence is a supplementary optical service. We hope that eventually the whole optical service of the country will be articulated through the

hospitals where, in the first place, patients can be examined by ophthalmic surgeons.

Streptomycin

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Minister of Health why special instructions have been given to the officers of His Majesty's Customs to prevent the private importation of streptomycin.

Mr. Bevan: No substance to which the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1925, applies may be imported except under licence of my Department. No licences to import streptomycin are being issued as British supplies are adequate for all home requirements, with a margin for export.

Mr. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if a person wishes to import this stuff on his own account, out of his own private funds, it is evidence that the supply is not sufficient? Would he not consent to permission to import being granted?

Mr. Bevan: It is not evidence that the supply is inadequate. It may be evidence that the person himself is misinformed. If the hon. Member will bring to my attention the case of any person unable to obtain streptomycin produced in Great Britain I will take immediate action.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Restrictions Acts

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the hardship caused under the Rent Restrictions Acts and that tenants are forced to live in uncongenial homes owing to the impossibility in many cases of the landlords doing the necessary repairs; and if he will therefore implement the recommendations of the Ridley Report.

Mr. Bevan: I have received representations to this effect, but, as I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Bower), on 9th March, there is no prospect of early legislation to revise the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware, first, that all landlords are not wicked and, secondly, that in many cases rents are not sufficient for them to keep their property in proper repair? In the long run it is the tenant who suffers, and suffers badly.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tenants were living in uncongenial conditions for 20 years between the wars and were paying 25 per cent. increase in house rents in respect of repairs? Why were repairs not carried out then?

Mr. Bevan: It is true that the existing rents include the proportion of the standard rent for repairing property and for voids. Since long before the war there have been no voids and, therefore, the landlord has been getting his rent regularly and also retaining the proportion of the rent he receives for repairs.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the position is different in respect of the two sorts of controlled houses? Is he not aware that for a very long time the position in regard to repairs has been both contradictory and unsatisfactory under the rent Acts? When can they be brought in to simplify and review the whole matter?

Mr. Bevan: I have already explained that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts in this House.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that in the numerous cases where landlords are not doing repairs local authorities are exercising their powers to do repairs?

Mr. Bevan: The local authorities, of course, have very considerable powers in this matter and it is my view that in very many instances they do not exercise the powers to the extent which they should.

Softwood

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Health how much softwood is now allocated per house; and what structural alterations have been rendered necessary as a result.

Mr. Bevan: The maximum allowance is 1.6 standards for each thousand square feet of floor area; details are given in Circular 100/49 issued to local authorities, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain regions only 1.5 standards is to be allocated and is he

absolutely satisfied that the standard of houses is not being reduced as a result?

Mr. Bevan: I am satisfied that the standard of houses is not being reduced. In some areas it is 1.5 standards and in some areas it is even less than 1.5 standards. Very often it depends on whether they are using wooden or metal frames for windows.

Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in slum clearance areas in Liverpool landlords are unable to comply with local authority orders to repair, as the property is too bad, and that rents are not collected, and when arrears reach a high amount orders for eviction are made to county courts; and what steps he proposes to take to alleviate this situation.

Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries into this problem.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the details I have sent to the Minister about bad cases, and the very difficult housing situation in Liverpool, would he see whether it is possible for county court decisions to fit in with the requirements of his Ministry?

Mr. Bevan: I have no control over county court decisions I am glad to say, but there are some very curious features about some of these cases in Liverpool and I am making inquiries.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Will the Minister make it clear that he deprecates any suggestion of a Minister attempting to give directions to His Majesty's judges?

Mr. Bevan: I have already said that I have no such powers, and I would not like to have them.

Slum Clearance

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider withdrawing Circular 1866 so that local authorities can recommence inquiries on slum clearance, as the deterioration of properties awaiting inquiry since 1939 has become so bad that notices to repair cannot be complied with.

Mr. Bevan: I am always ready to consider applications for confirmation of Orders in respect of clearance areas if


the local authority are satisfied that the houses should no longer be occupied and that they can provide for the rehousing of the persons displaced.

Rent Control (Pamphlet)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Minister of Health whether an up-to-date edition of the pamphlet entitled "Rent Control in England and Wales," Command Paper No. 133, published in 1946, can now be issued.

Mr. Bevan: The only new rent control legislation passed since the publication of pamphlet C.133 is the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, on which an explanatory memorandum F.R.2A, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, has been printed and is available to the public at the offices of local authorities and rent tribunals. There is no need, therefore, for the revision of C.133.

Mr. Houghton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of several decisions in the Court of Appeal since 1946, particularly with reference to what constitutes a separate dwelling? In view of that, does he not think that some more up to date guidance should be given in this publication about the application of the Rent Acts in cases of that kind?

Mr. Bevan: I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that when we had the Landlord and Tenant Bill before the House we put certain decisions of the court right in that respect, or, rather, reverted to what we hoped was the original law. I will look at the point raised by my hon. Friend, to see whether any revision is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Iodised Salt

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some people are allergic to iodine; and how he proposes to avoid causing grave inconvenience together with a risk of serious illness to such people when he requires all salt for human consumption to be iodised.

Mr. Bevan: I am advised that there is no evidence whatever that the addition of a salt of iodine in the very minute

quantities proposed would have any adverse effects.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: But if the addition of the salt is effective in stopping goitre, which is its purpose, is it not possible that it might be also effective in other directions, for instance, in the case of those who are allergic to iodine?

Mr. Bevan: I can understand the hon. Member's anxieties in this matter, but it has been fully examined by the Medical Research Council. I can assure him that even those who would be allergic to iodine would not be affected by the minute quantities which, however, would still be effective in preventing goitre.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I wrote to him this morning, bringing a specific case of this nature to his attention? Will he reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Bevan: I have not yet seen the letter, but I will certainly examine it very carefully when I see it.

Peckham Health Centre

Mr. Iain MacLeod: asked the Minister of Health whether he will exercise his powers under Section 16 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, to make a grant to the Peckham Health Centre.

Mr. John Cooper: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the financial difficulties which threaten the closing down of the Pioneer Health Centre, Peckham; and if financial assistance will be forthcoming from his Department to enable this centre to continue as a Research Institute under Section 16 of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

Mr. Bevan: As I understand that the Centre is closed, the question of grants for research does not at present arise. The governing body of the Centre have placed proposals for the Centre's future before the London County Council, and I am in touch with the Council on the research aspect of these proposals.

Mr. MacLeod: Whatever the London County Council propose, is the Minister aware that he has a direct responsibility to this House for the encouragement of research? Is he aware that those people best qualified to judge consider that the


Peckham experiment was one of the most worthwhile and exciting research experiments in the world?

Mr. Bevan: My officers will be delighted to receive from those who were in charge of the Centre any conclusions in the research aspects of the Centre which they are likely to put before us, but so far we have not received them.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman right in saying that there have been no discussions, even of an informal character, between those responsible for the Centre and his officials? Is his Ministry not in possession of the new plans for research?

Mr. Bevan: What I said was that we would be very delighted to examine any conclusions reached on the research aspects of the Centre, which has been in existence for many years. I will again make inquiries, but, as far as I know, I do not believe we have had any concrete conclusions.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend act with some speed in this matter, because the work of the Centre is suspended for only three months? If it cannot reopen at the end of that period, it will have to close for good. It is not sufficient to leave the matter to be settled by the L.C.C.

Mr. Bevan: There are two aspects of the matter. There is the health centre aspect of it, which first must be discussed by the local authority concerned, who are responsible for putting up proposals for health centres, and there are the research aspects of the matter, which are the concern of the Ministry of Health and the Medical Research Council. Those two things have to be considered together.

Mr. Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will—bear in mind that although temporary arrangements have been made to carry on the Centre, there is a definite limit to them? The result of these negotiations is very urgently awaited.

Mr. Bevan: I am very well aware that many hon. Members are most anxious about the Centre, as are many people in the country. As I have informed the House before, a special sub-committee

of the Central Health Service Council is examining the whole question of health centres. I am awaiting their report, and this matter will be considered in conjunction with it.

Major Vernon: In view of the fact that the research aspect of this work goes beyond the strictly medical field, will my right hon. Friend consider discussing it with the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy?

Mr. Bevan: It is because it goes directly beyond the medical field that it has some very interesting features about it. That is the claim it makes, that it is as much a social as a medical experiment. What we are trying to do is to assess the social significance of the Centre in so far as we can.

Swimming Pool, Thorpe Bay

Mr. McAdden: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Thorpe Bay is a seaside resort, and that a swimming pool is a desirable amenity for the many visitors; and whether he will therefore reconsider his decision to refuse loan sanction to the Southend County Borough Council for the purpose of reconditioning this swimming pool.

Mr. Bevan: This scheme, like other similar ones, must, unfortunately, be deferred for the time being.

Mr. McAdden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the closest seaside resorts to London and that thousands of visitors from working class homes go there every year, sometimes only for a day? Is he aware that the tide in this district recedes somewhat and, unless the swimming pool is provided, they may go home without the benefit of having a swim?

Mr. Bevan: I can understand the concern of the hon. Member about this, but we cannot allow all schemes to proceed simultaneously, or they would smother one another.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a swimming pool would attract more people to Southend than the Festival of Britain will attract to London?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Beekeepers

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the import of foreign honey does not reduce the number of beekeepers in this country.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): None, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the number of beekeepers will be reduced on account of imports of foreign honey.

Mr. Grimston: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is real anxiety about the importing of cheap foreign honey, which will reduce the number of beekeepers and have a serious effect on the pollination of fruit trees?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I am not aware of that, nor have we had representations at the Ministry on that score.

Smallholdings

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land have been acquired, county by county, for smallholdings since the war in England and Wales; how many requests by county councils for permission to purchase land have been rejected on the ground of prices being too high; and what is the policy of his Department in determining the amount that should be paid.

Mr. G. Brown: As the reply to the first part of the Question includes a number of figures, I propose, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the remaining parts of the Question the maximum price, which, in accordance with the Government's policy, local authorities may pay for land is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The case does not, therefore, arise of requests for permission to purchase which have to be refused on the score of price.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in certain places it has proved impossible to buy land because permission cannot be granted to the county council to buy at the high prices asked?

Mr. Brown: I have no information on that matter. If the hon. and gallant Member has knowledge of any such cases, perhaps he will send me details of them.

Following are the figures:


Area of land acquired by smallholdings authorities between the period 1st October, 1945, and 31st March, 1950


—
1. Land acquired by purchase or leasing
2. Land in Column 1 previously held on lease
3. Net addition to estate


ENGLAND
Acres
Acres
Acres


Bedfordshire
792
368
424


Berkshire
56
56
—


Buckinghamshire
686
686
—


Cambridgeshire
568
249
319


Cornwall
2
—
2


Cumberland
356
347
9


Devon
483
287
196


Dorset
1
—
1


Durham
609
594
15


Essex
272
—
272


Gloucestershire
228
91
137


Hants
186
186
—


Herefordshire
6
—
6


Hertfordshire
107
107
—


Huntingdonshire
338
338
—


Isle of Ely
296
296
—


Kent
16
—
16


Lancashire
40
—
40


Leicestershire
58
58
—


Lincolnshire (Holland)
1,995
258
1,737


Lincolnshire (Kesteven)
5
—
5


Norfolk
13
—
13


Oxfordshire
40
—
40


Somerset
41
36
5


Suffolk, East
141
141
—


Sussex, East
6
6
—


Sussex, West
4
—
4


Warwickshire
285
—
285


Wiltshire
40
—
40


Worcestershire
265
200
65


Yorkshire, East Riding
21
21
—


Yorkshire, West Riding
274
274
—


Total, England
8,230
4,599
3,631


WALES





Carmarthenshire
59
59
—


Denbighshire
22
22
—


Flintshire
6
6
—


Glamorganshire
328
328
—


Merionethshire
244
244
—


Monmouthshire
164
164
—


Total, Wales
823
823
—


Total, England and Wales
9,053
5,422
3,631

Note:—No other counties acquired land during the period.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for smallholdings have been made since the end of the war; how many have been satisfied; how many permanently rejected; and how many acres will be required to satisfy the remainder.

Mr. G. Brown: In the period 1st October, 1945, to 30th September, 1949, the latest for which complete figures are available, smallholdings authorities in England and Wales received 15,984 applications. Three thousand one hundred and nineteen were granted; 2,533 were refused; and at the end of the period 9,950 applications for a total of 248,000 acres were outstanding.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that the demands for smallholdings are not being met at a sufficiently high rate? What steps is he taking to try to speed up the matter?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that the figures show that at all. Following the coming into operation of Part IV of the Act, which was subsequent to the period of the figures I have given, outstanding lists will have to be gone through in accordance with the degrees of preference now laid down under Part IV. It may be that the lists will be reduced when that is done. In any case, we have not so far found it at all necessary to hold back smallholding authorities, who have initiative in this matter.

Mr. Paget: Does my hon. Friend know what is the average cost of equipping a smallholding?

Mr. Brown: That is a different question, but if my hon. and learned Friend will look at the Smallholdings Advisory Council report, he will find in it considerable details of the figures.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the policy he has adopted as a result of the report of the Smallholdings Advisory Council involves existing holdings being amalgamated to make larger holdings, so that the rate of granting new applications will get smaller and smaller?

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture what factors influenced him in deciding to eliminate part-time smallholdings; and whether he is prepared to review this decision in the light

of special consideration affecting specific areas.

Mr. G. Brown: The provision of part-time smallholdings is not, in my right hon. Friend's opinion or in the opinion of the Smallholdings Advisory Council, consistent with the objective of the Government's smallholdings policy, which is to help agricultural workers to become farmers on their own account by creating more properly equipped full-time holdings As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) on 30th March.

Major Legge-Bourke: The answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred does not really answer the question. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this question of part-time smallholdings is not the same in every area and that particularly in the Fens part-time smallholdings have played a great part in the past in encouraging men to stay on the land? If he ends part-time holdings he will encourage men to leave the land altogether.

Mr. Brown: This is not a suitable occasion to debate the views of the Council, which are set out in the report, but what my right hon. Friend said in the reply to which I have referred, is that time will have to be taken to bring the existing part-time holdings into line with the new arrangements. There is no intention of rushing holus-bolus into this arrangement.

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible, so that we can have a Debate on the report.

Feedingstuffs

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make feedingstuffs available to owners of less than one acre of land who were not registered in 1939, but who are anxious now to keep pigs or poultry.

Mr. G. Brown: Such people are already eligible for domestic pig and poultry rations, and also for bonus rations on deliveries of pig-meat and eggs. As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement on 16th March, the bonus ration will be increased from 1st May. Present and prospective supplies of


feedingstuffs do not, I regret, permit commercial rations to be made available to producers of the kind mentioned.

Mr. Hare: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the 1939 limitation is a severe deterrent to many thousands of smallholders all over the country? Does he not agree that he should reconsider this matter, because there would be a great increase both in pig and poultry produce if smallholders were allowed to keep stock of this sort?

Mr. Brown: It is precisely because we considered this matter that the scheme was introduced which, in certain cases, enables us to get away from the 1939 scheme. The hon. Member is now raising the question of producers owning less than an acre of land. For the reasons I gave in my answer, I regret that we cannot go any further in that matter.

Fertilisers

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the supply of fertilisers has fallen short of requirements in the southern counties; and what action he is taking to ensure that adequate fertilisers, especially potash, are available for the potato crop.

Mr. G. Brown: My right hon. Friend is aware that favourable weather has enabled farmers to get well ahead with cultivations and that in consequence there is now an exceptionally brisk demand for fertilisers. Distributors are at present concentrating on the delivery of potato fertilisers and any local and temporary shortage should very soon be overcome.

Mr. Hurd: As it is potash that is particularly short, could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether we are getting the expected supplies from Palestine and also from Germany and France?

Mr. Brown: Yes, we are getting the supplies which we banked on obtaining, and the supplies of all these fertilisers this season has been larger than last season. Had heed been taken by farmers of the advice to take delivery of potash during the early part of the season, I doubt if there would have been any difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY COMMISSION

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent the Forestry Commission intend to invite

tenders for contracts for road construction.

Mr. G. Brown: The Forestry Commission will do so where major works are proposed and where there is a prospect of contractors being prepared to tender.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Forestry Commission's activities, and is he quite certain that the six miles of roads laid in the Kershope forest area could not have been constructed for a smaller sum than £24,000?

Mr. Brown: The answer to both parts of that question is, "Yes, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Black: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reduce the Purchase Tax of 66⅔ per cent. to which cameras and photographic apparatus are subject, in view of the fact that roulette boards, pin tables and similar articles are subject to a Purchase Tax of only 33⅓ per cent.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: While realising that the hon. Gentleman cannot disclose what will be said on 18th April, may I ask if he can give an assurance that this year there will be adequate facilities for discussion of the Purchase Tax during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Jay: No, I can give no assurance in advance.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman think that this difference is forcing people to take the "chance of a lifetime"?

Mr. Jay: The House decided in 1948 to reduce the tax on games requisites because it did not wish to see them too severely taxed.

Mrs. Mann: Would my hon. Friend urge the Chancellor to make clear in his Budget statement where the incidence of Purchase Tax really falls, and will he bear in mind that Members opposite both on the platform—

Mr. Speaker: That question relates to the tax as a whole, whereas the Question on the Paper deals only with pin tables, roulette boards and similar articles.

Sir John Mellor: As the Treasury has power to make this reduction by Statutory Order, does the hon. Gentleman think it quite fair to give the stock answer about not anticipating the Budget?

Mr. Jay: Yes, I think it is perfectly fair at this stage.

National Investment Council

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings of the National Investment Council were held during 1949.

Mr. Jay: None, Sir. As my right hon. and learned Friend informed the House on 7th December, 1948, he decided that it was no longer necessary to summon this Council, since the main purpose for which it was set up was being achieved in other ways.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is this not a statutory body, which was proclaimed amidst a flourish of trumpets by the present Minister of Town and Country Planning, and embodied in the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946? Is it not melancholy that it should so soon have fallen into desuetude?

Mr. Jay: No, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. It was not statutory. It was set up by administrative action.

Captain Duncan: Is the reason why it has not met because there is nothing to invest?

Entertainments Duty

Mr. Maudling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to grant a rebate of entertainments tax in cases where a cinema shows a British film.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Maudling: While appreciating the hon. Gentleman's position, may I ask him to ask the Chancellor to have a look in the meantime, at a scheme of this nature which has been introduced in Italy with considerable benefit to the Italian film industry, now suffering from a similar difficulty?

Mr. Jay: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. and learned Friend is examining all these schemes.

Mr. Maudling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to reduce the degree of differentiation in the matter of entertainment tax as between cinemas and other forms of entertainment.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister bear in mind that cinemas consider that they are badly treated in this matter, especially vis-à-vis musical halls?

Mr. Jay: I have already received a deputation and heard the view of exhibitors and producers.

Compulsory Acquisition (Compensation)

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the injustice which is occasioned to owner-occupiers of dwelling-houses compulsorily acquired by public authorities by reason of the operation of Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; and whether he will introduce legislation to provide that in the case of dwelling-houses occupied by their owners the compensation payable upon compulsory acquisition shall be sufficient to enable the owners to acquire other premises with vacant possession.

Mr. Jay: This matter was fully debated during the Parliamentary proceedings on the Bill for the 1947 Act, and I can hold out no hope of amending legislation now.

Mr. Hutchinson: Surely the Financial Secretary recognises how unjust it is that a person should be turned out of his home and then paid compensation which is


assessed upon a basis deliberately intended to prevent him from obtaining another house with vacant possession? Surely that is an injustice which this Act is bringing about, and to which the Financial Secretary ought to give attention.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this Section was not fully debated in the House by reason of the fact that the Clause was introduced only on Report and that the Report stage was subject to the process of the Guillotine?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (POWERS OF ENTRY)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, as distinct from the 15,000 officers who at present have power to enter without warrant into private houses and premises, he can now state the number in the limited category with the right to demand entry into private houses, excluding Customs and Excise officers and factory inspectors.

Mr. Jay: About 2,000; of whom a few are in the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the rest are divided between the War Damage Commission and the Inland Revenue Valuation Office. The powers are very rarely used in practice.

Mr. De la Bère: How can the Government claim that this is a free country, when snoopers without warrants belonging to the Ministry of Civil Aviation can enter private houses? Is not it a real negation of liberty comparable with a totalitarian State, and can we have an assurance that these people will not be allowed to enter without a warrant?

Mr. Jay: I believe that the use of these powers should be kept to the absolute minimum, and that that is, in fact, done.

Mr. Stanley: Did I understand the Financial Secretary to say they are mostly employees of the Minister of Civil Aviation? Why do they want to go into a private house—to see if people are hiding an aeroplane there?

Mr. Jay: I said that a few were employees of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The reason why they were given power to enter such place was for the purpose of extinguishing or screening any light cons-

idered liable to cause any difficulty to landing aircraft.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that this is a national scandal, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (STAFF)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in view of the need of effecting economies in the total number of civil servants, what steps he is taking to reduce the staff of the Central Office of Information.

Mr. Jay: The staff of the Central Office of Information is kept under constant review, and during the past year has been reduced from 1,723 to 1,548, a fall of 10 per cent. A further fall is expected. The hon. Member will realise that the size of the Central Office, as a common service Department, must be related to the volume of work it has to do for other Departments.

Mr. De la Bère: May we have an assurance that the Central Office of Information will not be used purely for propaganda for the Government, because that is what is alarming most hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir, that never has been the case, and I do not think ever will be under any Government.

Captain Crookshank: Why does the hon. Gentleman say, "A further fall is expected"? It must happen as the result of action; the number will not just fall away.

Mr. Jay: That is precisely why I said it was expected.

Mr. David Renton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that when he refers to this as a common service Department he is overlooking the fact that most Departments have their own public relations officers and that the duties of the Central Office of Information overlap? Would he bear that in mind in any further reduction of staff?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir, it is well known that there are certain activities where it is important to make use of a central Department. There is no overlapping.

Mr. Marlowe: Could not the hon. Gentleman ask some of the gentlemen from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to go to the Central Office of Information and turn the lights out there?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME AFFAIRS SURVEY

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost to public funds of the issue of Home Affairs Survey No. 148, dated 21st March; and what were his objects in authorising the publication of all the material therein contained.

Mr. Jay: Two hundred and eight pounds. The object of the Survey is to provide British information officers abroad with factual material for their work.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the items in this issue is a prolonged defence of the Control of Engagements Order? In view of the fact that that Order has now been withdrawn, is any purpose served by seeking to defend it, unless that purpose be retrospectively to try to cover up the error of the Government in introducing it at all?

Mr. Jay: I understand that the purpose of the article was to give the history of the Control of Engagements Order when it was in operation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But what is the purpose now of giving that history unless it be to attempt to justify the Government?

Mr. Jay: I should have thought that there was always a purpose in giving an historical record in matters of this kind.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

MALAYA (SITUATION)

12 noon:

Mr. Gammans: I hope the House will agree that it is very appropriate and essential that we should have a Debate on events in Malaya before this House rises for the Easter Recess. A situation of real gravity is developing in that part of the world, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will not take the attitude that we on this side of the House are in any sense trying to make party capital out of this discussion. I hope we shall not be chided for irresponsibility if we state what we fear are very unpleasant facts. Indeed, there is very little in what I am going to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would refrain from saying even if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) was in his position.
What are the facts? Surely, the first is—and I hope we can agree on this—that the events in Malaya must not be regarded in isolation, because they are simply a part of a world-wide attempt by Communist Russia to dominate the world. What is happening in Malaya is that the cold war, which we are fighting here and which every democratic country is fighting within its own borders, has in Malaya become a hot war. The tragedy of it is that we are not winning this hot war. The facts of the situation, if looked at objectively, show that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 ill-armed bandits challenging with impunity very nearly a division of British troops, and also between 40,000 and 50,000 police. The Kremlin has certainly got very good value for its financing of these 3,000 brigands, because they have immobilised a division of troops which ought to be in Western Europe.
The second fact is that the situation is getting worse instead of better. Malaya has just had an anti-bandit month, and there was a great response from the civilian population, which proved incidentally that this is not in any sense a nationalist uprising. The results of that anti-bandit month have been disappointing in the extreme. On the whole, the


bandits in Malaya have killed twice as many of our people as we have of theirs. If I may give some figures, the security forces and civilians had 77 killed, while we killed 38 bandits. When it comes to the wounded, the ratio is 5 to 1; 101 of the security forces were wounded, and only 22 bandits.
It is not only that, but the situation is getting worse in two other respects. For the first time, the bandits have started to operate in the large towns. Bombs have been thrown in Singapore, and a pitched battle took place at a spot no farther from the centre of Kuala Lumpur than Hampstead Heath is from this House. What is more, there are now larger bands operating which can overpower an isolated police station or rubber estate. In addition to all that, trains are now being derailed.
Let me give two instances, to convince the House that I am not exaggerating, of what happened only two days ago.
Bandits collecting identity cards in a raid last night on Damansara village, seven miles from Kuala Lumpur, murdered three Chinese men and an elderly Chinese woman, whom they battered to death because they could not find her son; shot and wounded a Chinese woman who was taking a bath; and wounded a four-year-old Chinese girl. Another section of the same gang, on its way to the village, met the Indian chief clerk of the Seventh Mile Estate, tied his hands and shot him dead opposite the first houses in the village.
In the Bahau area of Negri Sembilan, 20 bandits ambushed an estate lorry, killing a special constable, two Chinese labour supervisors and an Indian labourer and wounding a Chinese special constable, a Chinese labourer and the Malay driver of the lorry. They also fired on a police jungle squad travelling on the Bahau road in two vehicles, without causing casualties. An armoured train from Mentakab to Triang, in Pahang, was derailed and fired upon yesterday, but the train guards drove off the bandits.
Those are all the events that happened within 24 hours during the last two days.
If I might go back to last month, we find that, on 2nd February, the European manager, with 25 specials, beat off an attack on the European bungalows and factory of Telemong Estate, Bentong, with the help of a military party who arrived on the scene later. Gurkhas killed two bandits in Jelenu. Two specials were killed in the Johore Beharu area when 100 bandits attacked a Chinese estate. In the Kluang area bandits fired

at specials guarding the water pumping station at Rengam town. One special died of wounds. In Johore Bahru bandits dragged a Chinese and his wife from their house and shot them dead. Thirty bandits shot dead two Chinese women and stabbed a third near Mentakab. A significant sidelight was the hoisting of 11 Communist flags during the night—one on the top of the public canteen in the heart of Ipoh town.
If I may give one more instance, on 24th February, 150 bandits—and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to notice the point about the larger gangs—ravaged the village of Bukit Kepong in Johore, 35 miles inland from Muar, burned three women and a child to death and killed 13 police and six kampong guards. The bandits attacked at 4.30 a.m. from three directions and the 17 police fought back for three hours. At 7.30 a.m. the bandits broke through the defences, burned down the barracks and marched the wives and families of the police to the station to order the police to surrender. One woman who refused to go was murdered. When they still refused to surrender, the bandits fired the wooden police station and threw in hand grenades.
Finally, the four police left alive jumped from the burning building and three died in their last charge at the bandits. Meanwhile kampong guards 2½ miles away attempted to create a diversion and two were killed. Later it was found that wells in the village had been poisoned. The appalling feature of this incident is that no means existed for the police to summon aid and it was not until after the bandits had left at 10 a.m., that the head man of the village set out in a boat to the next police post 14 miles away. Aid arrived at 4 p.m., 12 hours after the attack started. What is most ominous about this particular outrage is that there was no means whatever for the police to start communicating with headquarters, and it was 12 hours after the attack started before the news about it reached headquarters. These are the events of just three days.
The third factor in the situation is surely this—that we cannot expect the planters and tin miners to carry on indefinitely under these conditions. I sometimes wonder if the Government realise what life on a rubber estate is


really like. We hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to Malaya, and, incidentally, I hope he will go there before July, which was the date we first heard about. If he does go out there, I do plead with him not to spend all his time in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore surrounded by military guards. I hope he will spend a week-end on a rubber estate with the planters so that he can see what their lives are really like and the difficulties with which they have to contend.
Rubber planters today are living inside barbed wire fences, on which are lights shine at night to prevent anybody creeping through, while the telephone rings every hour with a call from the police to find out if the people are still alive. That is how they have been living for the last two years. If I may quote some passages from a letter from the wife a young planter, they will show what life is really like:
We sleep with a Sten gun under our bed and a revolver in bed. If we go anywhere, the last things that are placed in the car are the guns and the baby's rattle. The baby appears to be cutting her teeth on a revolver.
Yet these people are carrying on in conditions like that month after month. Those are the facts of the situation.
We on this side of the House would make three criticisms of the Government. First, we contend that they have not up to now sufficiently realised the seriousness of the situation, and they have continuously issued optimistic reports which have been disproved by events, and in this connection I want to quote one example from the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, who, on 3rd June last, made this statement in the House:
Extraordinary progress has been made in the past few months in dealing with these disturbances and uncertainties. I think it can be said that the progress is good, that the security authorities have the situation well in hand, and that we can look forward to the complete elimination of this trouble over a period which I hope will not be too protracted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 2490.]
All that sounds pretty hollow now.
My second criticism of the Government is that, while they have generally done the right thing, they have always done it too late. I will just run through the various things that have happened

over the last few years—the series of unfortunate decisions. We started, of course, with the attempts to impose a constitution in a hurry, all of which had to be withdrawn and almost completely reversed. Then there was the well-meaning attempt to introduce trade unionism at a hand gallop, which resulted, as everyone predicted, in the unions being dominated by Communists within a very few months, and that had to be reversed. Then came the attempt to deprive the Government of the powers of banishment of offenders and of the control of secret societies. That, again, had to be reversed. Then we had this very unfortunate episode of the introduction of the Palestine police in a way which caused all this dissatisfaction among the Malayan police. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the report on that was only published yesterday.
Now, at last, we have the appointment of Sir Harold Briggs as a co-ordinator, and I want to say a word about him in a moment. But why did we have to wait two solid years for co-ordination at all? Our third criticism of the Government is that it seems to us that very often the right hand of the Foreign Office does not know what the left hand of the Colonial Office is doing. I am, of course, referring to the recognition of Communist China.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not true that the Leader of the Opposition urged the Government to recognise the People's Government of China on 17th November?

Mr. Gammans: As a matter of fact he did nothing of the sort. He said that the whole question of the recognition of Communist China would naturally have to be considered.
The question I wish to put to the Minister—and perhaps he will reassure us on it—is, can he tell us whether the Colonial Office was really consulted over the recognition of Communist China and the way in which that régime was recognised, that is, three days before the Colombo conference was held? Does the Minister still contend that this recognition has had no effect whatsoever on the intensity of the bandit campaign, because, if he takes that view, I can assure him that there is no one in Malaya prepared to accept it. Do the Government know that the day after we recognised the Communist régime, Malaya was plastered with


Communist flags from one end of the country to the other? Is there any wonder, when the Communist régime in Peking is recognised, that the Chinese in Malaya look over their shoulders and wonder who is going to control Malaya in the next two or three years?
I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman read an article in yesterday's "Daily Telegraph" by Sir Keith Murdoch, the Australian, who has just come back from Malaya? In it, he said:
Nothing could have been calculated more to encourage the rebels and frighten our essential supporters than Whitehall's recognition of the Chinese Communist Government. It made Communism respectable, and threw doubt on our sincerity. Chinese necessary for our cause could feel the knife slipping across their throats.
He went on:
Neither the Chinese nor the Malayan populations want the Communists among them; they want us to stay for at least a generation. They know that following us would come massacre and disaster.
What, also, is going to happen with regard to the appointment of Communist consuls to the Chinese consulates in Malaya? We cannot evade this much longer. It will mean that we shall have people legally appointed to these consulates who can help the bandits in the jungle, not only with money, but in other ways as well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated the resolution passed by the State Council of Perak two days ago protesting most strongly against the appointment of these consuls. The motion was proposed by a Chinese, Mr. Leong Yew Koh, who had had a bomb thrown at him only a few weeks ago and who actually addressed the House sitting in a chair. He said:
If we allow a Communist consul in our State, nefarious action is inevitable. Contact with terrorists will be made and our anti-bandit campaign will be sabotaged. How are we to prevent this consul from putting pressure on Chinese here, because of their relatives in China, to force the Chinese to buy Communist victory bonds?
The House is entitled to know what safeguards, if any, the people of Malaya will have against the appointment of these consuls. Are we going to restrict them to a particular area like the Communist countries restrict our diplomatic representatives, or are they to be allowed to carry on just as they wish?
These are our three criticisms of His Majesty's Government. What can be

done? We hope, in this connection, that we shall hear something more than the statements made, not only in this House but in another place, during the past week. Let us get it out of our heads that there is any magic formula that can settle this matter. Do not let us have talks about new constitutions or the sending of more trade union organisers, or think that anything like that is going to settle this affair. This is not a nationalistic rising, but a war; and the only way to win a war is to fight it out. The Communists are adopting exactly the same technique as they adopted in Greece, Czechoslovakia, and Albania. This is a matter of fighting it out.
The second point with regard to what action can be taken is this. We have to admit that the present type of military and police action has very largely failed. One of the reasons why it has failed is because we have been compelled to use short-term National Service troops for a job for which they were never intended. By the time these men acquire jungle training, they are due to come back. If we have not enough Regular long-service troops, can we use more Gurkhas? Why not use the King's African Rifles and long-term service troops from Africa? These men fought magnificently, and with great efficiency in the jungles of Burma; they could fight equally well in the jungles of Malaya.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who raised this matter as long ago as September, 1948, said:
If as we have so often suggested during the past two years an adequate Colonial Army had been built up, it would have been possible to draw upon it for men who were used to the bush and able to stand up to the climate.
Has anything been done in that direction? It is not much good sending more half-trained troops.
What about equipment? Is there enough radio equipment? When this campaign first started, we were, unbelievable as it may be, short of rifles. Then we were short of Sten guns. What has happened to the radio equipment? Why is it, as I read yesterday in the report of Sir Alexander Maxwell on the police, that there are still lonely police stations without telephone or radio? Why is it that planters who are cut off have


no means, even now, of getting in touch with headquarters? What about armoured cars? We were told only last week that more were being sent out. More being sent out after two years! What is happening? Is it true that the Army and the police in Malaya have never asked for them before? Where does the fault lie? Does it lie with Malaya for not asking for them, or with London for not sending them?
In my opinion the "Anti-bandit Month" has very largely failed because the Government have not yet regained the confidence of the people. When I was in Malaya, I went on a good few raids against tin stealers and gang robbers, and we always found that it was not much good going into the jungle on spec. One only goes into the jungle on information received. It was only because one knew that one was going to get them or had a good chance of getting them that one ever made a raid at all. That is equally applicable today. The police, however gallant, never catch these bandits, unless the Chinese population are prepared to give information. The bandit could not survive for a minute in the jungle without getting food and help outside. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to read an interesting book before going to Malaya he should spend Easter reading "The Jungle is Neutral." That would give him a good idea of the conditions. He would gather from it that without help from outside that bandits would not survive at all. The police would get help if the people of Malaya could be reassured that the Government means business and that they would not be left in the lurch in a short time.
We are told that General Briggs is a co-ordinator. If there is one word I distrust it is the word "co-ordination." In my experience it almost invariably means divided authority and muddled thinking. Can General Briggs give orders to the police and the military? Can he, on his own authority, clear an area of squatters or has that to go through the High Commissioner? Does he deal direct with the right hon. Gentleman, or does he have to deal with these links in the chain—the Commissioner of Police, the O.C. Troops, the High Commissioner and the Governor-General? What is wanted is not a co-ordinator but a supreme commander and a six months state of

emergency under military law. I do not believe the country can be cleared without it.
What are our relations with Siam? We are told that a lot of these bandits are trained on the other side of the border. Are the Siamese co-operating with us in this matter? I have seen the suggestion made that we would cut the jungle on the frontier between ourselves and Siam and put up block-houses and barbed wire. I suggest we should sow the area very heavily with mines. That is the sort of operation we would have done during the war and would have thought nothing of it. Is it completely beyond us now? Is it not feasible? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if it has been examined at least?
Has any approach been made to Australia and New Zealand to help us in this matter? I believe it was made before but perhaps with a new Government in power in both countries something could be done in that direction. After all, if Singapore fell Australia and New Zealand would be faced with a most deadly peril. Sir Keith Murdoch said yesterday:
More men skilled in jungle fighting would help, and I believe that these could be obtained from Australia.
Time is getting short, and there is a limit to what the planters and tin miners can stand. General Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin have signed an agreement in the Kremlin. If it is on the normal pattern of Communist agreements what matters is the secret clauses. I wonder if the subject matter of one of those secret clauses is an all-out military attack on South-East Asia to capture the rich rice bowl of French Indo-China, Siam and Burma and also to strike a deadly blow at Britain's interest in Malaya.
It is no good talking about closing the dollar gap if we lose Malaya. Last year Malaya produced as many dollars as the total exports of the United Kingdom put together. What we want to be reassured about is not only what the Government is doing to put down Communism within Malaya itself, but that, if the worst should happen and Malaya should be attacked from without, His Majesty's Government is capable of dealing not only with the inevitable fifth columnism from within but also capable of repelling any invaders that might come from the north.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Snow: While I hardly agree with a word that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) has just spoken, I must say that, in sharp contra-distinction to his speech last night, he did express himself in moderate terms at least, and that is something we ought to welcome.
I have been listening to the theories he has put forward. It seems to me that his whole assumption was that only by wholesale military suppression could one hope to provide a remedy for the disturbing situation in Malaya. I do not think it is pandering to sentimentalism to say that there is probably an alternative to that. When one considers the economic situation that has developed in Malaya one cannot help remembering the words of the former Chinese ambassador to this country who, when speaking in Geneva, said "the sky was dark with the wings of the chickens coming home to roost."
I am not making a party point but will not the hon. Gentleman agree that if we had poured back into Malaya in pre-war years some of the great wealth extracted from Malaya, we would not be faced with this situation?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to agree. I emphatically disagree. Is he aware that the International Labour Office sent a delegation to Malaya before the war and they came back and reported that Malaya had the highest standard of living of any country in Asia and one which exceeded that of more than half the countries of Europe?

Mr. Snow: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me. I am not prepared to accept the view that if the position of Malaya was good in comparison with other countries, it was good enough. I was not trying to make a party point. My party was in office several times before the war. I was working myself in a colonial dependency under a Labour Government when things were permitted which should not have been permitted.
As I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman, he was saying that in fact a state of war should be declared and that the whole administration should become a military operation. What are the implications of that from the commercial point of view? Am I not right in saying that,

if a state of war were declared, insurance coverage which only applies at present in conditions of what are termed "riot and civil commotion," would cease? If that international insurance ceased, it would have a very bad effect on the commercial interests of this country in Malaya.
There are other matters I should like to dispute with the hon. Gentleman. I agree that we are not fighting nationalism but fighting an internationalism which is in opposition to everything for which we stand as social democrats. But when we have said that, how are we going to provide some alternative which will attract the inhabitants of Malaya and distract their attention from the baits offered to them by Communist political forces? It is not going to be easy to provide that alternative. I do not think we have had enough time to offer that alternative, although it does exist and will exist if we are given the time.
Not enough credit has been given to the administration for the things that have been done. This country has provided £8 million in emergency contributions. That money comes from taxation imposed upon ordinary men and women in the factories. This country has provided £20 million grants for the scheme of War Damage Compensation, plus an £18,500,000 interest-free loan for the same fund with money provided out of taxation levied in this country. We have provided 43 million dollars from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. All this money comes out of taxation levied in this country.
While I think the hon. Gentleman made a good point just now when he said that the dollar exports from Malaya were greater than the total dollar exports from this country—I think that is a substantial point, and I agree with him—the fact must be realised that, in origin, the capital for that development came from the work of the ordinary people of this country. It is rather regrettable that the hon. Gentleman has written articles which have been published in Malaya and which have done great disservice to the very good actions which have been carried out by this Administration on behalf of the people. He knows that I am not making an unfair point. He has written very partisan articles indeed in Malaya which I do not think he should have written.
I want to address one question to the Colonial Secretary. Does he know anything about an organisation called the Singapore Music and Dramatic Association? If he does not, I would suggest that he looks into it, because I understand that that cultural organisation—at least, I suppose it is cultural—entertained Tan Kah Kee recently in Singapore. It is, in fact, a front for the Communist Party in Singapore, and one of the disturbing things that resulted from Tan Kah Kee coming to Singapore was that he appeared to convince some of the Chinese merchants that if they "stepped on the wagon" now and reserved a seat, when the Chinese Communists did take over Singapore they would be all right. He apparently convinced them that that would be quite an easy thing to arrange.
I am very disturbed by the fact that, by and large, this trouble in Malaya is Chinese. The Malayans themselves, so far as I can gather from reading such documents as I can find, are not in this rising; it is Chinese in origin. If that is so, is it not time that we provided more and more scope for the native Malayans—I use that term advisedly—to participate more in the economic life of the country? I think the hon. Member for Hornsey will agree with me when I say that many of these Chinese merchants who live a very ostentatious life and who provide a sort of social provocation the whole time, are at the root of the trouble. To some extent I think the Europeans are equally to blame. Standards of living that they demand in places like Singapore are a permanent provocation to the ordinary people of the country.
I have worked in Eastern parts of the world myself, and I know it is not a reasonable thing to say that a European should not have many amenities there which are not necessary in this country. Climatic conditions and other things make it desirable that he should have various additional amenities, but the Chinese and Europeans and the commercial elements in Singapore over-do it, and by over-doing it they provide provocation. The ordinary people say "Is the present state of society just? Should these people have this apparent great wealth when the ordinary people of the country are living in such a state of serious economic depression?" I suppose that sounds like class warfare. It is

not meant to be. I have lived in those countries, and I know it is a fact that Europeans in India did the same thing. The military and the commercial elements in India year after year provided a scene which appeared to the ordinary Indians to be economically unjust.
I want to put this last point to the Minister. I wonder if the commercial elements in Malaya—the Chinese and the British—are making a fair contribution to the expenditure on military operations at the present time. Is there not some justification for saying that an increase in taxation would be a good thing? I say that because we cannot indefinitely pour out the wealth of this country provided by the hard work of the people in our factories, and expect them to sit by and see this vast expenditure going abroad which can only result in a depression of our own standards of living in this country. From what I can learn, I think, the defence contributions by residents in Malaya should be stepped up.

12.35 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: In the short time that I propose to occupy I do not want to develop too much in detail the situation in Malaya. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) knows a great deal more about what is actually happening and what has happened in Malaya than I do. What I want to emphasise is that what is happening in Malaya is only one aspect of the threatening developments that are going on right through that area.
I cannot possibly enter into a quarrel with the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) as to whether the social habits of the British and the Chinese—and let me remind him that there are also Indians and the Malayans themselves to consider—may have caused some social dissatisfaction in that part of the world. The point is that from Pakistan and India, to Ceylon across to Malaya and Borneo, and on to Australia and New Zealand, there is a threat developing which has got to be met, not in isolated patches or pieces, not in this Colony or that, but throughout the whole of that part of the world. At the moment it is our misfortune that it is we British in Malaya who are engaged in a hot war. But the importance of our success in Malaya means just as much to all the


other nations in that area as it does to our own interests.
It is a lamentable picture to look upon—to think what the situation was at the end of the war or, indeed, up to the beginning of 1946, and to think what it is today. I do not propose to say much about the situation in India and Pakistan, except to express my great satisfaction that, at long last, the two Prime Ministers have got together. But in connection with the country with which we are dealing today, the seriousness is that the resistance which those two Dominions ought to be capable of making against this threatening peril to the whole of that area is grievously handicapped by their own internal disputes. I read last night a paper in which I learned that there are some 5,000 Communists in the gaols of India today. I can tell the House that when the communal strife occurred in 1946, there is little doubt that it was inflamed by Communists. I had to preside over a commission, and there was certainly evidence to that effect.
I read in the same paper to which I have just referred, that there is the clearest evidence that the Communists have been inflaming the trouble in Calcutta during these last days. One can say nothing about Burma, except that, there again, its capacity to resist this threat of Communism has been infinitely weakened, and I rejoice that anything is being done—and I hope much will be done—to try to strengthen it with a view to resisting this threat.
I pass on to Malaya. We seem to be dealing with this country on our own, and much to my sorrow I can see no general policy at all between all the Powers and nations who are interested in the South-East Asia area. I disliked strongly, and still do, the recognition of Communist China. I thought it was a grave mistake at the time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Leader of the Opposition advised it.

Sir P. Spens: With great respect, I do not mind. What I feel is far worse is that that recognition was not made in consultation with the United States. It was against their policy. As far as I know, it was not done in consultation with anybody else. If I am wrong I shall be corrected. There are ourselves, there

are the French in Indo-China, there are the Dutch in Indonesia, there are the Americans with their interests in the Philippines and the Pacific area, and there are the whole of our Dominions and Colonies; and there ought to be, and must be, one common policy to deal with the whole situation.
There is a suggestion that at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth representatives this threat is to be dealt with by trying to raise the standard of living throughout these countries. That is ultimately the only cure and safeguard against Communism, but it will take years to achieve. Anybody who has lived in the East knows how long it takes to raise the standard of living among Eastern people. It is difficult enough to do so at home, where such an improvement takes a generation to achieve, but to raise the standard of living of many millions of Eastern people, in order to try to eliminate the ground on which Communism might flourish, will be the task of at least a century. Does anyone think that Communist forces are likely to wait that length of time? Communist forces are infiltrating into the whole of this area, and a common policy must be put forward, and put forward quickly. I should like to see, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey suggested, Australia, New Zealand and other nations, if necessary, asked to help in dealing with Malaya. Let us get everybody together so that they may all realise what has to be done.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth that the chief trouble in Malaya comes from the Chinese. When I was in Singapore two years ago news was being received day after day of the landings of boatloads of Chinese on the Malayan coasts. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say what steps are being taken to patrol those coasts against that sort of thing. The Chinese came at first by sea—which is the natural element of most of the people in that part of the world—and unless the Navy are co-operating with other forces, I am quite certain that the infiltration will continue.
My main point is to suggest that this problem is not merely a matter for the Colonial Secretary, or for this country alone. It is a matter in which His Majesty's Government should get together


with all the other Governments concerned. We must all formulate a plan—an immediate plan, and not merely one for improving conditions in the countries affected—and work together, realising that this is a campaign which is being directed from somewhere, which is never short of either money or arms, and if sometimes there is a shortage of men, when one lot disappears another lot arrives. Unless all this is done, and without delay, that part of the world will go over to Communism, lock, stock and barrel.
I want to say a word about Indonesia. It is not unnatural that when nations start on nationalistic programmes, they accept help from whatever source they can get it; and no body of men is quicker to realise that there are people ready to be helped than are those who direct the Communist campaign. It would be wrong to suggest that those who adopt nationalistic policies in that part of the world are all Communists. On the other hand, there is a terrible danger of those people getting financial and personal help and training for their leaders from Communist sources. I ask the right hon. Gentlemen who are concerned with this question to remember that. Communism has infiltrated into some of these areas indirectly through assistance which has been given to those nationalistic forces, and to those who know the life of the people it is surprising in what unexpected places examples of this are to be found. I hope that when the meeting at Sydney takes place in May, first and foremost on the programme will be the question of how members of the Commonwealth are to co-operate together and with others in dealing with and defeating this menace.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I listened with very great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who has a very great knowledge of the part of the world which we are discussing. I agree with him that the trouble in Malaya is all part of the cold war, and that if it is not directed from the Kremlin it is directed from the Kremlin's agents in the East who met a short time ago in Calcutta. This war is a war with Communist imperialism, and it is being fought out in Malaya with weapons suitable to the Malayan terrain. I also join with the hon. Member in expressing

admiration, not merely for the planters—I know the sort of life they lead—but also for the miners, officials and others in Malaya who are having an extremely thin time.
In the speeches we have heard from the other side of the House, the fact that we are dealing with guerrilla forces has been kept in the background. No forces are more difficult to deal with than guerrilla forces, and I would remind the hon. Member for Hornsey, who is equally aware of this, that there are millions of acres of jungle in Malaya. It is an undeveloped country and it is easy for guerrilla bands to hide themselves; it is very difficult indeed to track them down. Although the forces on the Communist side are small—they can be numbered in thousands—they are volatile, and we have undertaken an extremely difficult task in trying to extirpate them. Let us, therefore, in all fairness to the Government, admit that the task of our authorities in Malaya is an exceedingly difficult one. We have only to think of what is happening in this country, which is highly developed and nearly all built upon, and our difficulties in putting down "cosh" bandits and others. Anyone who realises the extent of our troubles here in putting down these law breakers can imagine what the position is like in Malaya.
I asked a Question the other day of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and the answer which I received was very disconcerting. I was under the impression that originally the bandits in Malaya were Chinese, who came across the border from Siam, and that recruitment was from their ranks. In his answer to me, however, my right hon. Friend said that recruiting was now done locally. He told me people were working during the day at their ordinary work and that they became bandits by night. I think that is the gist of what he said. He said also press gang methods were in force for getting recruits for Communist bands in Malaya itself. That was a very disquieting statement in my opinion. That is all very difficult to put down. I can remember when I was out in Palestine and the troubles were on, how the fellaheen, though working at their crops by day, would take up rifles by night. We are dealing with an extremely difficult thing, and I think that hon. Members opposite


are not giving the Government adequate credit for what they are trying to do.
The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Hornsey that martial law should be proclaimed. Well, martial law is proclaimed in certain circumstances, for instance rebellion. There is no rebellion in Malaya. Martial law is proclaimed sometimes in a particular area—one particular spot—where there is riot and commotion. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, Have not the Government in Malaya adequate legal powers? Is it right to impose martial law on the whole country, on innocent and guilty alike? Because martial law is very onerous indeed, and gives tremendous powers to the authorities, and imposes heavy restrictions on the whole population. I do not think there is any justification for imposing martial law, and I think it would be very unwise to impose it.
As regards the recognition of the Communist Government in China, I am well aware that our people out there were foremost in demanding that recognition for commercial reasons amongst others. It is quite incorrect to say, however, as was said here a moment ago, that recognition was accorded without the knowledge of or consultation with the American Government. As I understand it, the American Government were consulted from start to finish, and I think I am right in saying that the American Government raised no opposition at all to the recognition of the Communist Government by Britain.
Possibly the Government in Malaya have made optimistic statements from time to time that they had got the troubles in hand, when they bad not, and that has been a mistake; but while that may be so, it is for us to back up the Government in Malaya and to give them all the arms and help they require. We should ask the Government in Malaya to show that they intend to finish this job however troublesome it may be. We must persuade the Malayan people, Malays and Chinese both, that we intend to win the struggle, and show the people of Malaya that they have no hope of anything from the Communists except disaster. I urge my right hon. Friend to press on relentlessly and ruthlessly with every measure necessary to support the Government in Malaya in putting down this trouble in Malaya.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). I was rather astonished by it. It seemed to me from the picture that he drew that he had not got beneath the surface of the problems of the lives of the Europeans, the Malays and the Chinese in Malaya, He drew a picture of exceedingly wealthy people living in ease and comfort—ease of mind as well as ease of body. His picture was a totally and utterly untrue one to draw of how the average European, the average Chinese, the average Malay lives in that country. An enormous change has come over the whole situation since the days 20 years ago when there were booms in various local commodities. I think it is common ground between everybody in the House that a very serious deterioration has come upon the whole situation in the last three months.
I should like to take up one other point that the hon. Gentleman raised, and that was about the insurance, because he was not quite accurate about that. It is perfectly true there is grave danger to the flow of rubber and tin—which, incidentally, provides this country with very much more than it gives out to Malaya in the sums the hon. Gentleman mentioned and provides it in dollars, too. That flow is in real danger. In the insurance contracts borne by the insurance companies there is a clause that they can give either 30 or seven days' notice. It by no means depends on any act of the Government, or on whether there is a declaration of any sort by the Government or not. It depends entirely on whether, in their view, the risk they are asked to write is a war risk or a peace risk, for no insurance company can honestly write a war risk. Therefore, the danger, whether martial law is declared or not, does not arise from a declaration of the Government but from the facts of the case.
One of the points I put to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday was how he was going to tackle that, because at the present moment the local authorities have refused to put into operation any scheme that could take over when the private companies could no longer underwrite because they felt they could not pay out.


The local authorities at the moment have said they will introduce no scheme unless it is self-balancing in the first year. It is quite impossible for anybody to give a guarantee that any insurance scheme will be self-balancing in the first year. If we are to insure the flow of rubber and tin, which at the present time continues owing only to the great gallantry and perseverance of the Europeans, the Chinese and Malays working in those industries, which are absolutely vital, the Colonial Secretary must use his powers to break down the local point of view which is quite untenable.

Mr. Snow: I do not wish to dispute the point about insurance, because the hon. Gentleman knows more about it than I do, but I think there is substance in what I said on the first point. He criticised me for painting a wrong picture. I hope I made it clear—if I did not I should like to do so now—that I was referring to the urban mercantile classes, not to the planters and their associates, for whom I have a very profound respect.

Mr. Fletcher: The very fact that the hon. Gentleman referred only to the urban classes, proves my contention that his picture was wrong. It is a danger, in any case, to generalise about the Chinese. One of the most significant facts in the whole of Malaya at the present moment is the split between the good and the bad Chinese, and I shall refer to that a little later on. I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) in his analysis of the situation as having deteriorated greatly, but I am not certain whether the causes of it are sufficiently clear. It may well be that an impulse to the deterioration has been given by the recognition of the Communist Government in China; I believe that to be the case; but I do not quite agree that it is the main cause.
I believe that the main cause—although the recognition of the Communist Government in China is an important contributory factor—is that the bandits have changed from what they were one year ago when I was out there. Then they were ill-clad, ill-directed bands of thugs with no worked out plan at all. Their work of destruction was very much less. Today they are people who are fed,

directed, clothed, armed and alimented, given directions and order by bodies in Malaya itself. These local bodies in turn may be helped from outside, and I have no doubt that in many cases they are, but before the recognition of the Communist Government in China there were already signs that parts of the Chinese community were disaffected, and felt discontented because under the scheme of His Majesty's Government greater political power has been given to the Malays than to the Chinese, and that that discontent was being worked upon by Chinese elements already in the country. So the discontented Chinese were registering their protest and trying to keep their positions by this means.
I have often defended many parts of the Chinese community in this House, but I should like to say here and now that, for those parts of the Chinese community who may be suffering under this discontent because greater political power has been given to the Malays, there is no more reprehensible way and no worse way of going about their grievance, no way more likely to ensure that they will get no sympathy, than that in which they are indulging. In nearly every town, village and district there now cells, all largely composed of Chinese, who are often made the playthings of Communism, but who are themselves undoubtedly levying considerable sums of money from other Chinese who may not hold the same political views as they; and this works from very high up all the way down.
The greatest possible danger is that this movement is being financed and carried on from the centres that I have enumerated, and leads to, I think, the inescapable conclusion that we must attack the cells in the towns and in the villages; that is, the bases from which the bandits or guerrillas—whatever you like to call them—draw all their sustenance, and are enabled to continue. The operations which were carried out by our troops, and are being carried out, are hitting at the perimeter, and that is an excessively difficult task. The percentage of the country that is cleared and is free compared with the jungle into which the guerrillas can disappear with ease and move about—and anybody who has read Colonel Spencer-Chapman's book "The Jungle is Neutral" will realise this—is very small.
Therefore, I believe that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government, not only to think in terms of assisting, reinforcing and equipping those who are the spearhead for the attacks on the bandits, but to take vital preventive measures at the bases. For that purpose we need an enormouse increase in the C.I.D. part of the police, with unlimited funds to be used by them in the traditional manner that the Chinese understand—because they can be persuaded by monetary means just as often as they can be persuaded by means of force. That is the only way to counter their fifth column methods—which are by the levying of money to keep these guerrillas going—and it is of vital importance. Whether or not we shall be able to do that quickly and in time is a little doubtful. Time is not on our side in solving this particular problem. We all expected an improvement, but we have had a real deterioration.
The first thing to do is, not only to think in terms of co-ordinating at the top—which I do not believe will have a very great effect—but to find the right type of people for the C.I.D. work. One of the tragedies is the disappearance of so many of the right type of police officer, who knew the Chinese dialect, who knew the Chinese in his own district, who knew the doings of the secret societies, and who had that personal intimate knowledge which enables one to smell when something is going wrong in a particular place, when there is a new movement, when new faces appear, especially coming from outside.
The trouble that there has been in the police force has had a far wider effect than appears to be realised, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see how many of those who could carry out this most difficult but essential part of the work can be retained, or asked to rejoin I do not agree with the analysis made regarding the work done by the different types of troops, as between the conscripts and the Regulars. In both those types excellent work was done by some, while others were found less fitted for the particular work. We certainly ought to pay a tribute to the work that was done by a great many of the conscript troops out there.
Another problem which the right hon. Gentleman will have to handle when he

goes out there, and possibly before, is the difficulty in carrying out extradition orders. One of the great troubles has been that the squatters have formed a sort of band which enables the guerrillas to get intelligence, to hide themselves, and to be guerrillas one day and squatters tapping a rubber plantation the next. Very many of them have been cleared away, but more will have to be cleared before real safety can be ensured in any particular district. Up until a little while ago the extradition of these thoroughly undesirable people, largely Communist in their outlook, took place in considerable quantities, and they were sent to the ports of Amoy and Swatow, from which most of them came. For a long time now those ports have not been open, and I regret to say that owing to the mishandling of this question last year by the Foreign Office, and the failure to appoint a consul there, there was even then a gap.
Today, one of the most important problems in Malaya is undoubtedly that so many of the people who are taken in for protective purposes from this screen of squatters who help the Communist bands, and who give them invaluable information about what our troops and forces are doing, are still in the country in large numbers in camps. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of the danger, supposing that those camps were broken into and those forces released? I believe that as we have recognised Communist China it would be perfectly in order for us to ask that the ports of Amoy and Swatow should be opened, so that we can send back these people, who clearly should be welcomed there for their political attitude, and who clearly are not welcome where they are at the present moment.
The question of appointing a high officer out there must be considered a little in relation to what has happened on the civil side. There is still the separate Federation of Malaya, Singapore with a Governor, and above them a Commissioner. That has not worked very well. There are still considerable differences and stresses between the acts and the speeches of the two councils, and the fact that there is at present a wise, able and experienced co-ordinator has not affected that. Indeed, one of the things to which the Colonial Secretary should pay attention when he is out there, and which may prevent him listening to the


demands which are being made for even further powers to be given locally to elected members, is undoubtedly this. If examination is made of the records of the councils up to date, he will see how small a step towards real responsibility has been shown by the sectional members of those councils.
In my view, very often the council scarcely speaks with one voice on any occasion. They are still in that stage of development—it is quite natural; I am not saying this in any spirit of blame, because it is natural in the early stage—where the full sense of responsibility of people who have on their shoulders the task of directing the government of the country has not yet been realised. In the present emergency it seems to me very wise to sound the same note of warning as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor did on 3rd June last year, when he was pressed by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) to make even further advances.
Unless there is something like stability in the political sphere, how are we to base operations against what is now quite an important section of the community, the Communists? The incidents to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey drew attention, where when the Nationalist Government was recognised a large number of flags were flown, and there were rejoicings, are some measure of proof of what I have just said: that it is among the civilian population that we must look for the source from which the guerrillas draw nearly all the things that they must have to keep going.
I should like to refer for a moment to the question of Indonesia, because it is affecting the economic, and I think may well affect the political, life of the country. In Indonesia, after a number of events to which I will not now refer, self-government has been given to the people of Indonesia, but they have not yet been able to find a very stable or easy form of government, for one overwhelming reason: that they have not yet got a civil service—that cement which holds any governing body together—to take the place of those who have now relinquished their posts, many of whom have returned to Holland.
They cannot be replaced quickly, and if, as a result of the great difficulties and

dangers experienced, not only by planters and miners, to whom reference has already been made, but by the great band of civil servants and those who have to go out for the various firms there and are responsible, in large degree, for carrying on the mining and rubber getting, the difficulty of recruitment, which is already apparent, becomes even greater because the Government are unable to stop the deterioration in the local situation. If young people realise that it will be difficult to take their young wives and children out there, or to have a family out there, then in a very few years we shall have hit at the class who are really carrying on the most difficult and dangerous task of all in Malaya—that of good civil administration.
This banditry or guerrilla warfare has gone on so long and its effects are becoming so deeply imbedded in the minds of the people, that it will lead to difficulties in recruitment. This problem should very much occupy the attention of the Colonial Secretary. By all means let us have more and better equipped troops for the difficult job of attacking the bandits as and when they can be found, but let the right hon. Gentleman devote a great deal of attention to the question of obtaining intelligence for breaking up of counter-espionage and other methods available by cells all through the country, from which the guerrillas draw their power to harm, which unless, the matter is handled much more vigorously and on a much wider sweep than is the case now, may lead to upsetting the whole of our economic balance. We are prone to take it for granted that because tin and rubber have flowed from Malaya and have played a great part in reducing the dollar balance, that that must continue. However, there is real reason to fear that that will not continue unless something like an all-out effort on the lines that have been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and myself is undertaken, not after July, when the Minister is going there, but from tomorrow onwards.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Member for Bury and Ratcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) has left me three minutes in which to make my speech, and therefore I shall try to make it as direct and sharp as I can. I do so with pleasure because I am a constituent of


the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who opened this Debate. He said that this problem cannot be solved by a magic formula. I agree, but his speech, in which he suggested that the solution was to regard this as a war which must be fought to a conclusion, and that the correct course is to appoint a supreme commander and to apply six months martial law, is a magic formula. Looking at this problem only from one point of view, that suggestion is bound to fail to find any solution.
In the two minutes which I have, I want to urge very strongly upon my right hon. Friend that he should balance that kind of advice by a different kind of advice—that he shall seek in Malaya in these coming months to concentrate upon two points. The first point is the raising of the standard of life of the whole of the people. The hon. Gentleman says that this must take centuries, but I suggest to the Minister that a very big beginning can immediately be made, and if the confidence of the people of Malaya is to be secured the first step should be to lay down an equality of remuneration for similar posts between the Malayan people and the Europeans who are there. The teaching profession, the medical profession and the legal profession are indications of the difference which now exists.
The second point is to urge that, despite the situation in Malaya at the present time, we should proceed vigorously with the democratisation of the constitution. At present in Malaya there is not a single elected member of the Legislative Council. There is a liaison committee now in Malaya regularly attended by Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, the Chief Commissioner for South-East Asia, and that has declared in favour of two things. In the first place, it has declared for an executive council which shall have unofficial representatives; and secondly, for a citizenship based upon birth and residence for all the races in Malaya. I urge very strongly, indeed, that the Colonial Secretary should carry out both those proposals.
My final point is that at some point in this struggle we must reach a stage where an amnesty will be necessary. When that point is reached, let us be strong in the fact that our Government in Malaya rests on social justice to the people and to their political freedom. If we are strong in

those two spheres, we need not fear the competition of the Communists in Malaya.

1.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I welcome this opportunity of discussing the Malayan situation, and I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I begin by saying that everyone who has spoken has an advantage which I do not possess, in that they have been speaking of a country which they know personally. I am very grateful that they have brought their experience of the conditions in Malaya to bear upon the contributions they have made today.
There have been in the House today in this Debate and in the Press both here and in Malaya, criticisms of the Government on the ground that we do not sufficiently realise the seriousness of the situation. I want to begin by reassuring everyone that there is no foundation for this criticism at all. There never has been, and there is not now, any disposition to regard the situation in Malaya as anything other than serious or to expect that there can be a rapid or easy solution to this very difficult problem. We also think that there is no magic formula. Everyone who has spoken in this Debate is agreed upon that. One can understand the reactions of the people who are involved in this very difficult situation. We must all realise that it is an ordeal and a very great strain. This kind of warfare—this shooting, running and hiding—and the fear that at any time there may be an attack on oneself or one's friends is a very great strain upon everyone. That must be realised very clearly from the beginning.
I should like to give the House a factual account of the steps we are taking to deal with this situation, and in the course of that I shall deal with most of the questions that have been put to me in this Debate. First let me give some account of the operation of these bandits or guerrillas in recent months. By December of last year the attacks of the bandits had been reduced to an average of about 23 each week. Earlier in the year it had been on a much higher level. There is no doubt about it that during the last half of 1949 there was every indication that we were getting slowly and steadily on top of the problem. Some of the statements made by my


predecessor and others, some of which have been quoted today, must be related to the situation of that time, and to the fact that week by week and month by month in the course of 1949 the attacks of the bandits were going down, which gave every reason to believe that the situation was improving, if slowly, nevertheless steadily and regularly.
There is no doubt about it, too, that the bandits themselves were feeling the effects and their organisations, morale and supplies were diminishing. Since the New Year the attacks have increased to about 50 or at a peak period 60 a week. This determined intensification of activity is perhaps largely due to the bandits' fear of the threat to their cause provided by Anti-Bandit month, in which the support for the Government's actions by the entire civilian population was such as to hamper the bandits freedom of movement and supply. Everyone will agree that one of the cardinal features and essential needs is to maintain and increase the confidence, support and co-operation of the civilian population.
Perhaps I may give figures from the beginning of this campaign in June, 1948, until the present time. Questions have been asked about them, so I expect they will be of general interest. During that period, 1,138 bandits have been killed, 646 have been captured and 359 have surrendered, a total of 2,143. The estimated number of armed bandits still operating is about 3,000. During the same period 323 police, 154 members of our troops and Fighting Services, and 803 civilians, have been killed. Sometimes there are exaggerated accounts, which do no good to anyone, of the effects of the campaign upon the bandits and upon our own people.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House what it costs to kill one bandit?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not know what that question means. If my hon. Friend is asking for information perhaps he will be good enough to put his question on the Paper.

Commander Noble: How many people are in detention camps, not only bandits but those who have been helping them?

Mr. Griffiths: I could not, without notice, reply to that question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I tried vainly to elicit at Question time yesterday from the Minister of Defence a reply to show how much military expenditure there has been in Malaya since the end of last year. Could the right hon. Gentleman assist me in any way? A Member of this House is entitled to know how much money has been spent since the end of last year.

Mr. Griffiths: All I can say is that I have not the information and that I do not know whether the information is available. In any case, that question would be better addressed not to me but to my colleague in the Defence Ministry.
The purpose of this anti-bandit effort was to rally the whole of the people against Communist banditry. I believe the House will be glad to know that there were nearly 500,000 volunteers, which is an indication of the success of the campaign and of its support from the general population. The campaign was never intended as a measure which could end the emergency, but as a rallying point for the civilian population and the securing of its support. It has shown very good results indeed. Out of it will come increasing co-operation from the civilian population. If I stress this point it is because, in warfare of this kind, the increasing support and confidence of the civilian population is one of the factors in success.
Plans for the continuation of this voluntary effort beyond the month for which it was originally organised are being put into operation. The chief extension is the development of the auxiliary police forces in the towns and villages. This will enable regular police to give more attention to their operational duties and will perhaps relieve them of some other duties for which the auxiliaries were formed. In addition, we are enlarging our schemes for resettling squatters. This scheme is marked by regular and continuous forms of activity to help everybody concerned in this campaign.
I want to mention a few facts about the position of the police and the Services engaged in this campaign. The police have been steadily built up from 9,500 in 1948 to 70,000 today. That figure includes 15,000 regulars, 33,000 special constables and 17,000 auxiliary police. The special


constables are full-time, and 693 new officers and men have been flown out to take charge of them and to train them. The auxiliary police are voluntary and unpaid, and consist mainly of guards.
They will also be assisted by the auxiliaries recruited during Anti-Bandit month in doing what is normally the work of the police so as to free the police for the more important duties of the campaign. Sir Alexander Maxwell has just published the report of his mission to inquire into the organisation of the Malayan police. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House. I hope that hon. Members will read it. I am awaiting the High Commissioner's recommendation, but I think it is fair to point out that the report discounts the exaggerated stories of dissension in the Forces and makes it clear that the Forces are loyal and united.
In regard to the Armed Forces, the present strength of British and Gurkha troops actually in operation against the bandits is approximately 11,000. In addition, there are 3,500 men of the Malay Regiment. The strength of the Forces in Malaya will be increased by about 2,000 troops with the moving of the 26th Gurkha brigade from Hong Kong, which will be completed very soon. Additional aircraft are also being sent, including squadrons from the United Kingdom.
Questions have been asked about armoured vehicles. The Minister of War gave details in reply to a Question on the subject the other day showing what steps are being taken to supply additional armoured vehicles. A question was also asked about wireless equipment, by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), among others. We know that this is a matter of very great importance. I am glad to say that nearly all the outstanding orders have now been met. The radio expert from the United Kingdom has recently advised on the police wireless network in Malaya and orders have been placed on his advice. They are being assembled urgently for despatch by air.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the vital importance of Malaya as the front line of freedom in the fight against Communism, may I ask

whether it has priority in troops and supplies over any other theatre of war?

Mr. Griffiths: I am speaking for the moment about the wireless equipment. The matter is of great importance and it is not unrelated to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher). I said that the orders were being urgently dealt with and assembled and were being flown out by air.

Mr. Blackburn: May I take it that, in general, priority is given?

Mr. Griffiths: I should not like to make a general statement of that kind. These instruments are required because they are of urgent and vital importance.
I want to say a word about Commonwealth Forces and about the suggestion that has been made that assistance should be sought from other members of the Commonwealth. All that I can say about that is that the House can be assured that the possibility is not being overlooked.
I was asked about co-operation with Siam. I am glad to say that in August of last year an understanding was reached with the Siamese authorities whereby Malayan police patrols accompanied by Siamese liaison officers were permitted to cross into Siam, and Siamese police permitted to cross the border in the same way. There is a growing and increasing co-operation, and we realise how very important it is. Already there are good results from this co-operation, which is being continued and expanded. I am very grateful indeed for the continued co-operation which is given by the Siamese authorities in this matter.
In regard to reinforcements in the future I can only repeat what was said by the Under Secretary of State for War, speaking for the Government in the House on 20th March:
While it is reasonable to hope, and Indeed reasonable to expect, that the military Forces as now strengthened will prove sufficient for the present operations, we are not proposing to close the door to a re-assessment of our requirements."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1702.]
Indeed, they will be kept under review continuously.
I should like to say a few words about the recent appointment of General Briggs


as Director of Operations. I hope that this will be regarded as a full answer to the criticisms which have been made of the plethora of authorities in Malaya. General Briggs has an admirable record of service in the war with the Indian Army, and his experience as General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Burma will, we believe, be of inestimable value to him in his new task. I am certain—so are my colleagues—that no better man could have been found for the task—I am using the word "task," for we have not found a better word in English, although there is one in Welsh—of co-ordinating the plans for action and co-ordinating the activities of the various parts of the Forces which have been assigned to this operation.
One hon. Member proposed that there should be martial law in Malaya. He was the only one who has made that suggestion. All I can say—I am sure he knows this too—is that the demand for martial law in Malaya has come from a very few people out there and that there is a very great amount of opinion there against it. It is important to remember that we have always aimed at the fullest co-operation between the civil and military forces in this campaign, for there is a dual task. There is not only the military campaign to rid the area of the bandits, but once the area is rid of them it is essential that the civil administration shall be built up very quickly.
The hon. Member for Bury referred to the importance of the civil administration. It would not be doing the job properly just to clear areas by military action and to leave civil administration on one side. It must be remembered that the job is the dual one of military operations and, at the same time, the building up of civil administration strong enough to hold the territory cleared by the military forces.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the three questions I asked him about General Briggs? First, can he give orders—

Mr. Griffiths: May I go on? I was coming to that. I merely wanted to show that there is a dual task of military operations and civil administration in order to give the background for the appointment of General Briggs and for

bestowing upon him the powers which he has. General Briggs will be directly responsible to the High Commissioner, and he will be in a position to give instructions to both the police and the military forces in regard to the planning and execution of the campaign. The Commissioner of Police and the heads of the Armed Forces in Malaya will, of course, retain the responsibility for the discipline, training and administration of their respective arms, but let me leave no doubt in the minds of anyone that General Briggs will have all the practical powers which a strategic commander requires in this situation. I hope that answers the question put by the hon. Member.
I have said that there is no complacency here or in Malaya on the part of the Government, but I want to urge that, whereas some criticism and suggestions are all right, at the same time suggestions that the situation is being carelessly or insufficiently assessed do harm to the progress we all wish to see and burk the difficulties within which we have to operate and do far less than justice to those in Malaya who are bearing the burden. I am certain that the High Commissioner and all the others are tackling their job with the clearest appreciation of what is involved and with the utmost determination, and I believe that, although it will be a big and difficult job, in the end we shall prevail.
I am sure the House will join with me in paying a tribute to all of them, to the men of the Army, the Air Force and the Police, who are bearing the brunt of these very difficult and trying operations, to the auxiliaries who are gallantly defending their posts under constant threat and danger, and to all those who have recently volunteered for duty to eradicate the menace, and also to the great mass of the civil population who have been so constant in holding to the road of ordered progress for their country and in fighting against the bandits. I would specially commend those of the Chinese community who have stoutly resisted the threats and intimidation brought to bear upon them and are standing loyally by us, and also all the people of all races who have maintained the trade, production and progress of Malaya throughout this difficult period, the rebuilding of her economy


and her social services, and the development of constitutional reform.
If we are ultimately to win this fight not only in Malaya but all over the world, we must remember that we must show the mass of the people everywhere that there is a better way. That is the only real alternative to show that their reasonable demands, their anxiety for themselves and their family, their desire for a higher standard of living and their desire for full citizenship and to be treated as human beings can be satisfied. Unless we can provide that alternative throughout the world, then Communism will thrive.
If I may introduce what might be regarded as a party note, it is because of that that I am convinced that social democracy is the only alternative to Communism, and I am proud to belong to a Government which is doing this job. Since there has been a Labour Government here, Communism has been going down in the country, nowhere more than in the area from which I come, for it thrives on bitterness and distress. It is essential to realise that, particularly in the case of Malaya. Not only are we conducting military operations and getting rid of the bandits there, but when that is done we are determined to build up the standard of life of the people.
I hope that the statement of the Prime Minister the other day will have removed any doubts which there might have been in the minds of any of the gallant people in Malaya and people in this country about our intentions. I will repeat the very clear words of the Prime Minister:
It is our firm intention to implement the policy … of steady democratic progress towards self-government within the Commonwealth. We … have no intention of relinquishing our responsibility for the defence of Malaya and the protection of its law-abiding peoples by all means at our disposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 180.]
I am grateful to all those who have made suggestions. Those suggestions will be carefully noted and considered. I hope in the not too distant future—no date has been fixed—to have the privilege of paying a visit to Malaya. Let me stress that we are confronted with a dual operation, of ridding the country of bandits and, at the same time, of building up a new civil administration. I know it will take time. Are the Opposition

sure that they have a century in which to do it? That is the problem. With military operations must go the development of Malaya's economy and the building up of production and the standard of life. Only by pursuing this dual policy shall we be able to see the menace disappear.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the office which I once held—an office which I regard as the most interesting and perhaps the most important of all in His Majesty's Government—should have had to make his first speech upon a subject where Colonial administration is today under the severest trial, instead of, upon the many areas of Colonial administration and Colonial prosperity where we can point to a much rosier picture.
Normally these Adjournment days are for the benefit of back benchers, and I should not have intervened—I intervene now only for a few minutes—were it not for the fact that I want to emphasise that the problem which we are discussing transcends in importance those ordinary problems, interesting as they may be, which we usually discuss on these occasions. This was the only method by which the matter could be raised quickly in the House, but it is of such immense importance that obviously it must be raised again at no long distance of time, when there will be more opportunity for all to take part in something which is not a matter of party politics and is of tremendous importance.
I want to say a word about what I regard as the most unfortunate speech made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). I am not questioning his intention; I am not even questioning how that speech may appear to people sitting in the calm of this Chamber; but I can imagine how that speech, taken by itself, will appear to the people who are facing the danger, the toil and the disappointment of life in Malaya today. In all his speech there was no reference to the fact that vast numbers of people are today living under conditions of just as great peril as the majority of the Armed Forces of the Crown had to face during the war.
There was no reference to the fact that they were living in what amounted, not


to a cold but to a very hot war. The suggestions that were made appear to me—and I am certain will appear to them—to have no reference to the immediate urgency which must be their concern day and night. They sounded not like proposals for putting down a Communist war but proposals for winning the next election. It was the same thing that we have heard before—emphasising how dreadful things were between the wars, and telling people that there will be higher taxation of certain classes. That is not much comfort to the men and women who are wondering every night when they go to bed if they will see another dawn, and every day when they set out on a journey whether they will reach their destination.
I think I can claim during the time in which I have taken an interest in colonial problems to have shown just as much interest in the raising of the standard of life of colonial people, and in the planned advance toward self-government of the colonial territories as those on the other side of the House who may perhaps speak more loudly. However, I say that in Malaya the advance in the standard of life, the advance towards self-government, depends upon one thing and upon one thing only, and that is winning the war in which we are now engaged. If any hon. Member has read the speech made by a noble Lord in the other place yesterday, who is just back from Malaya, he will realise what a farce it is to pretend that in a country where conditions like that are appertaining today, one can suddenly say, "We will raise your standard of living."
It will be the greatest struggle under those conditions to continue to maintain—or, indeed even to approximate to—those economic resources which today make even the present standard of life possible. Let them understand in Malaya that in this country, far away as we are, we appreciate their problem and understand that the first thing to be done is to defeat a movement which has nothing whatever to do with the ordinary political desirabilities of which we are used to talking in this House on the Colonial Estimates. It is part of a far wider and more sinister plan in which the pay of the teachers in Malaya really forms no very considerable part. Let them understand that this attack has first to be

defeated, because that is the essential preliminary to that better standard of life and that advance in self-government which hon. Members on all sides of the House wish to see them attain.

Mr. Snow: As the right hon. Gentleman singled me out, as he has every justification to do, may I say that I have never attempted to criticise his ideas as I have understood them. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is sincere and, considering the party he represents, that he has been enlightened. However, the kind of speech made by Lord Killearn yesterday and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) today seemed to me to be the kind of speech which resulted in the happenings at the Jullianwallabagh in Amritsar.

Mr. Stanley: I must leave hon. Members who read the speech of the hon. Member, and the background even of the speech of the Minister, to decide what effect that would have in Malaya.

Mr. John Hynd: rose—

Mr. Stanley: I cannot give way again; I gave way to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) because I referred to him. My time is up, and I shall conclude by saying that we shall certainly discuss this again in no party spirit because the objective of both sides of the House is the same. We want to put this thing down, we want to be able to have a fresh start in Malaya. It is merely a question now of how it can be done. Meanwhile I beg His Majesty's Government to regard Malaya as "Priority No. 1" in the whole of British policy; not only in our foreign policy, not only in our defence policy, but in our economic policy too, because all three will come crashing to the ground if we lose the war in Malaya.
Therefore I say to the Secretary of State for the Colonies: Do not let the Department hesitate in asking for anything they want, or, which is far more important, anything they may want in the future. It is much better to have it there before, than to have to ask for it a little late. Do not let them hesitate to ask their colleagues for all they want, because they can be certain that in their demands they will have the support of all sections of this House.

B.S.A. AIRWAYS (REDUNDANCY)

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Passing from the matter of paramount Imperial importance that we have just been discussing, I propose to raise now a matter which has its own Imperial significance, since it deals with that link of Empire—the British Overseas Airways Corporation. It arises out of the announcement made in the House on 15th March last year, by the predecessor of the Parliamentary Secretary, of the intention of the Government to combine the British Overseas Airways Corporation with the British South American Airways Corporation. I would remind the House of what was said on that occasion:
Any staff redundancies resulting from the merger will be shared fairly between the two Corporations and in accordance with National Joint Council procedure. On the other hand, redundancies arising from the internal reorganisation of British Overseas Airways Corporation which is now in progress will be restricted in effect to British Overseas Airways Corporation personnel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1923.]
As was explained at that time, the final reason for the amalgamation was the withdrawal of the Tudors from service. That meant that there were no aircraft left to carry on the British South American Airways service on the Northern route. It also meant that British South American Airways employees were left with no planes to operate and maintain except obsolescent planes. At the time I ventured to draw the attention of the House, in the Second Reading Debate, to the difficulty that this meant for British South American Airways personnel. I said:
… there may be a time when it will be much easier to get rid of them rather than of others who have already been fully trained in the maintenance of the new aircraft now being purchased.
The view of the Minister then expressed was that the probability was that there would be very little redundancy resulting and the reason given was that there would be extensions in other directions. For example, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor said:
As a result of general development capacity, there will be very little redundancy.
He also said:
In short, the emphasis is on producing more with the existing number of staff in both

Corporations, rather than dismissals from either the one or the other.
He went on to say:
This will be a period of expanding activity, during which, as in the first phase, economies will tend to be reflected by avoiding increases of staff rather than actual reductions of staff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 1308, 1309, 1368, 1390.]
To some extent that happened. So far the reductions in staff, certainly from British South American Airways personnel, have not been very considerable. In the first phase, after the amalgamation the South American Division was formed last summer and it meant Yorks operating from London on the South Atlantic route to the east coast of South America. Tudors were at that time also operating, I understand, on the Berlin Airlift from London, whereas on the line services Yorks were operating from Nassau. At that time, I gather, the staff of British South American Airways amounted to 800 in England and 100 on the line stations.
The difficulty at that point, to which I drew attention in the House, was that not much was being done to train British South American Airways personnel on other aircraft. A certain number of pilots were trained in the use of Canadairs and a certain number of maintenance personnel were taken from the line stations to be trained on that aircraft. During that phase, virtually none of the British South American Airways personnel was transferred to other lines. In the second phase, when the Canadairs had begun to operate on the service to the east coast, the South American Division was closed and a freighter service was started, called No. 5 Line.
At that moment a good deal of redundancy was declared. According to my information there were no dismissals and not many transfers, but the redundancy was declared which, quite naturally, was alarming for South American Airways personnel. The third phase was even more alarming, because it was found that not sufficient freight was flying to enable the No. 5 Line to be maintained and the freighter service was closed. I understand that the present position is that the Yorks which were being used are now being transferred to Hurn for modification for freighter purposes and that the few aircraft left—I believe only about three—


for modification by British South American Airways personnel, and with No. 5 Line, are due to be completed during this month, I understand.
It is very appropriate that in this Debate we should try to ascertain what is to happen in the future. What is to be the future of what has been the No. 5 Line? I would remind the House of the undertaking given that redundancies arising from the amalgamation of British Overseas Airways and B.S.A.A. would be dealt with separately from the re-organisation of B.O.A.C., which had been started sooner. We all know of the interest of the hon. Gentleman in this matter from his previous speeches in the Second Reading Debate, in which he deplored the need for amalgamation. He has shown sympathy throughout consideration of this problem.
The first question I ask the hon. Gentleman is: Does that undertaking stand? The second question is: Is it being honoured at the moment and, if so, in what way? I hope he will be able to give an answer to these questions and also to extend it to the wider plane and say how the whole question of redundancy is being affected by, for example, the withdrawal of the Solents, which presumably means the closing down of No. 4 Line, and by consideration of the future of Hurn, which may, in turn, mean the closing of No. 2 Line. Is there to be a complete reorganisation of the airlines within British Overseas Airways Corporation in the near future? Are we still to understand that the position is, as stated by his predecessor, that there will be very little redundancy because of general development?
I also ask what is to become of that general development. Is it in process at the time being and, if so, why is it that so few of British South American personnel are being re-trained for the needs of the new jobs? It is very natural that the employees should be anxious about the situation, and that at times there have been signs that they have been rather despondent about it. The reason for that was a notice which was at one time put up at London Airport by a member of the National Joint Council, to the effect that the No. 5 Line was to be closed and the whole outfit made redundant. This contrasts very oddly with the Wilcock Report, which indicated that the num-

ber of new entries into the career of maintenance engineer, for example, would be between 650 to 700 from civil life in each year from the year 1949 to 1957 inclusive.
On the other hand, I am told that, so far, rather less than one quarter of the original 800 in the South American Division, which includes all trades and labourers, have been transferred for training or employment and most of that quarter have been transferred to No. 1 line. A special difficulty arises to which I would refer. In my hen run I have a number of Rhode Island Reds. There is no particular significance in the colour, nor, as far as I know, has Senator McCarthy been after them yet. There was one hen which was chased about by all the other hens. It was pecked and its feathers spoiled and my young daughter referred to it as "the poor hen." All that happened because it was a little smaller and, possibly, not up to standard. However, it made its own way and, in due course, it became the pride of the hen run, laying the largest eggs.
Unfortunately, the same situation appears in the Airways Corporations. For example, not very long ago, in dealing with this problem—and I am certain B.O.A.C. have been trying to deal with it fairly—they transferred two men from London Airport to Croydon. I understand that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has special knowledge of this case. As soon as those men arrived all those already at Croydon decided to stop work unless they were suspended. They were suspended for a fortnight.
Finally, the problem of their employment came before the National Joint Council and, as a result, the one who was most diligent and outspoken in his own defence was found to be temperamentally unsuitable for employment at that particular shop and was transferred back where he came from. The other was left and my information is that he has been "the poor hen" in that shop. He was given a job and no assistance whatever to carry on with it. No one spoke to him and that seems to be not in the very best traditions of British good neighbourliness. That is one of the difficulties which, I realise, the hon. Gentleman is up against.
I hope that he will have something to say about it because in the "Croydon Times" of 25th March, a claim was made


by Mr. Anderson, said to be chairman of the shop stewards committee, that an undertaking was given by B.O.A.C. in August, 1948, that no non-union labour would be introduced into any department that was already 100 per cent. trade union. There seem to be different opinions at different times about trade unions. These men were told that they could report to the secretary of their own trade union. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal sympathetically with that issue as well.
To sum up, the questions which I ask about redundancy, are first, what is the position now and what are the prospects? Second, how is the redundancy being shared out as between B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C.—how has it been shared out and how will it be shared out in the future? Will the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that neither airways corporation either permits or connives at the closed shop in any branch of its activities? Next, was any assurance given, as alleged by the chairman of the shop stewards committee at Croydon, by B.O.A.C. in 1948, or at any other time to the effect that he claimed? If so, what did B.O.A.C. mean by non-union labour?
The last question I wish to ask is whether the National Joint Council procedure is working satisfactorily, because there has been visible evidence recently very close to here that it has not been working too well? It is rather likely that it will not work too well in circumstances in which trade unions dealing with many other activities, as well as aviation, nominate the representatives who are to deal with matters arising in the National Joint Council in regard to personnel of the airways corporations and the personnel of charter companies. Is that the best procedure?
In passing, I should like the hon. Gentleman to say, on what is the most important long-term problem, whether he is now expecting that there will be redundancy, and, if so, whether that means that we shall be cutting down and sacrificing trained personnel with the result that expansion in two or three years' time may entail simply having to recruit untrained personnel all over again? That would be a wasteful procedure, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to show how his Department propose to deal with the whole situation.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: Since the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. M. Macpherson) was good enough to make a reference to me, and since I am the only Member of this House who happens to be a member of the National Joint Council for Civil Aviation, to which the hon. Member referred on a number of occasions, I may perhaps be forgiven if I take up a few minutes, even in this very short Debate, to comment briefly on only three points which the hon. Member made. In the first place, in regard to the incident which took place at Croydon, the picture which he drew of the "hen-roost" there was by no means an accurate one. The gentleman he describes as having been found to be temperamentally unsuitable the moment he got there, was, in fact, only found to be unsuitable some time after he arrived, and that was only when and as the result of the fact that he began to try to cause trouble in the establishment.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me finish first. He cannot correct me as to facts. I went to Croydon and spent some time there. I interviewed everyone concerned with the matter, an opportunity of which the hon. Member has not had the advantage. I checked all these facts in situ. There can be no doubt, to revert to his hen-roost picture, that the picture is not that of a poor little hen being bullied by all the other and bigger fowls but that of a large fat hen telling the others that they should not be Rhode Island Reds but White Wyandottes and causing trouble.
Since the hon. Member has quoted a Croydon newspaper, I would say that the accounts in that newspaper of what took place in this matter were grossly inaccurate, and I had to send them, since they referred to my part in the matter on two occasions, a correction as to facts. I do not know whether they published that correction or not, and I do not care.

Mr. Macpherson: Is the hon. Member aware that these two men were in employment for only one day and were then put on paid leave? I suggest to him that if he is misinformed on that, he is probably misinformed in the rest of what he has said.

Mr. Mikardo: No, it is the hon. Member who is misinformed. They were not put on paid leave after one day. The secretary of the local joint panel committee was not there the day they came, so no complaint could have been made then. The hon. Member is misinformed, and if he cares to do so he can in the near future read the papers dealing with the matter, which I shall be glad to show him.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: How many days were they allowed to work?

Mr. Mikardo: I think it was on the third day that this matter came up. [Laughter.] I wish hon. Gentlemen would not laugh. They should realise what can be done in two or three hours, let alone two or three days, by a man causing trouble in a shop. In the case of one of these persons it was his own militant attitude which caused the trouble.
I can offer some sort of answer on the point which the hon. Member made in asking whether the machinery of the National Joint Council is working well. As a member of it I can say that here and there it has its rough spots, but I also say, as one who has sat on many joint consultation committees, both in private and public industry, that this is, with all its rough spots, easily the best and most effective piece of joint consultation I have ever seen in this or any other country, either in a publicly or privately owned company. It has some way to go, but it is doing a good job.
One of the things it has done is to deal with redundancy and its effects on the personnel of B.S.A.A.C. A series of meetings were held yesterday under the auspices of the National Joint Council, following a very long one last week. I am happy to tell the hon. Member that it is now established that there will be no redundancy as a result of the closing of No. 5 line, and that the Corporation hope to transfer to other places all those who are willing to go. There will be no redundancy among engineering personnel, in any event.
I should also like to tell the hon. Member that the trade union side of the National Joint Council has always been very careful to see that any redundancy is dealt with in accordance with the

Minister's pledge, which the hon. Member has quoted. In seeing that this pledge is applied, we are, I assure the hon. Member, as zealous to look after the rights of those employees who are not members of trade unions affiliated to the National Joint Council as of those employees who are. There is absolutely no discrimination at all. It is the action of the trade union side and its participation with the management in the last few days in examining the problems caused by the various changes that are going on that has, as I am sure the Corporation will be happy to testify, made it possible for this re-organisation to be carried out without redundancy and unemployment falling upon the workers, including those whose interests the hon. Member has represented.
If the hon. Member and everyone else who, like him, has an interest in seeing civil aviation become efficient and prosperous would devote every effort to ensuring that all those who work in the Corporation support the National Joint Council machinery instead of engaging in disparate and fissiparous activities to break down that machinery, he need have no fears. The difficulties which face the Corporation will be solved with the absolute minimum of embarrassment and discomfort to the personnel involved.

2.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): I seem to have very little time to go into all the matters raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). He was, of course, quite entitled to raise them, he did it with great courtesy, and I would like to help as much as is in my power. But I would stress that all the information for which he asked could have been obtained through the machinery which has been set up for the specific purpose of allaying anxiety among employees of the Corporation and for keeping them in touch with the administrative difficulties which the Corporation have to face.
I was asked whether I was sure that the machinery in joint consultation was working well. I can only echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). At times, there is evidence of a certain amount of roughness, but the machinery has not been in operation very long.


What I am certain about is that if it is to work with perfect smoothness we have to use it. If the hon. Gentleman can come to this House on the occasions when we discuss Civil Aviation and show me that there is any reluctance on the part of anyone we have appointed to the Corporation to use this machinery properly, then naturally that would be a matter for my noble Friend and for the Ministry. In the meantime there is this National Joint Council and I want to see it, in effect, the "Parliament" for that industry, because that is the purpose of it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is nothing "fissiparous"—which, I think, was the word used—about suggesting that anybody should be represented on that National Joint Council?

Mr. Beswick: That is a point with which I shall deal later. I was asked for some information about figures, which I have obtained, since the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me some advanced notice of what he required. The total staff of B.S.A.A.C. and B.O.A.C. at the time of the merger was approximately for B.S.A.A.C. 2,000; and for B.O.A.C., 18,000. Up to the beginning of this year, since the announcement of the amalgamation, B.O.A.C. have declared redundant 586 of their staff and B.S.A.A.C. 30. It is therefore obvious that so far as the re-organisation of B.O.A.C. is concerned the brunt of that redundancy has been borne by the B.O.A.C. personnel, and that is in accordance, I think, with the undertaking given by my predecessor that any redundancy arising from the re-organisation of the one Corporation should be borne by members of that Corporation.
I was asked what numbers are redundant at present so far as the Corporation as a whole is concerned, and I now mean the two bodies merged into the one Corporation. It is, of course, impossible for me to say what redundancy there may be. At the behest of the Minister, the Chairman of the Corporation has been carrying out a very careful economy campaign; and so long as there is any suspicion of an unnecessary person on the staff of the one Corporation then there is the possibility of redundancy. But I hope that we are now reaching the end of that economy campaign.
I was asked a question about this alleged statement made by a member of the shop stewards' committee at Croydon. I have made careful inquiries about this, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no authority was given by B.O.A.C. for the statement which he reports. Indeed, so far as I can make out, there seems to be some doubt as to whether any member of the shop stewards' committee did, in fact, say that no non-union person would be posted to Croydon; and the fact that the Corporation posted the two men at the beginning of this year does suggest that they have no intention of retaining Croydon as a closed shop as was described. I can further state that so far as the Corporation and my Ministry are concerned, there is no question of having a so-called closed shop in that industry.
There was a specific question about No. 5 Line, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is to be closed. That gives rise to the prospect of redundancy, but again, as my hon. Friend for Reading, South said—and he was a member of the N.J.C.—after consideration it was decided that there would be no redundancy or practically none, as a result of the closing of No. 5 Line. It is hoped to absorb the whole of the personnel previously employed on that Line into one or other of the B.O.A.C. bases. I hope that will go some way towards allaying the anxiety to which the hon. Member referred.
There is one point I would like to make about the "hen-roost." I began by saying that, in my view, all the information for which the hon. Member asked could have been obtained through the machinery of the National Joint Council. But he did suggest that there are certain people who are deprived of their rights; who cannot go to the N.J.C., and who have no representative on the N.J.C. That seems to me to be a mis-reading of the situation. They have a representative there if they choose to use that representative. It would be against my nature and instinct to compel anyone to join any organisation against which they have any conscientious scruples; although, at the same time, I can see the argument that if a person's conscience is so refined that he cannot join a particular organisation then he ought to be equally reluctant to accept wages and conditions of service


obtained by the efforts of that organisation.
However, we do not compel them to join any particular organisation. It is open for them to join and I would hope that they would play in with the team. It seems to me wrong—not on any political grounds, but on the grounds of sheer common sense—to expect to have two different bodies representing one body of workers. What is to be the position if we have two different agreements with the two different bodies, or if we have agreements reached separately with them? Either those agreements are the same, in which case one body is surely unnecessary, or if there are two different agreements one will be undemocratic. No; we have to try to so arrange things that these men, who were employed by B.S.A.A.C. are re-absorbed into the rest of the Corporation's activities. The method by which they will be re-absorbed is being decided by the National Joint Council through its local panels, and I hope that those people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred will work with those joint panels so that we can be assured that the process of re-organisation is carried through as quickly as possible.

TEXTILES (JAPANESE COMPETITION)

2.19 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am grateful for this opportunity for the House to devote a little attention to a problem which keeps cropping up at Question time and in Adjournment Debates and is still occasioning deep and abiding anxiety in Lancashire. I was inclined at first to regret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is not to be here to help us in this discussion, but I am greatly relieved and encouraged to see my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I know, from the contributions which he made to similar Debates before he had the responsibility of speaking for the Government, how deep is his interest in the matters that we shall be discussing.
It is the question of how the Government propose to deal with what is at present only the potential, but nevertheless real, threat to the present prosperity and usefulness of the Lancashire cotton

industry, which might be imperilled by the emergence in the Far East of conditions of competition against which Lancashire could not, and should not be expected to, compete. Nobody thinks that this is an immediate or present danger. Today, Lancashire is a hive of happy and prosperous industry, rendering a very valuable contribution in these difficult days—perhaps a contribution greater than that of any other industry with the possible exception of coal—to the restoration of the balance of our foreign trade. That of course, is a new thing in this generation. There is no industry in the country whose present happiness and vigour contrasts so sharply with the picture presented by that industry before the war.
I want to refer to that picture for a while. When I was a very young and inexperienced Member of this House, in February, 1937, I was fortunate enough to win a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions, and I moved a Motion about the condition of Lancashire. I do not want to devote too much time to this, but I do want to point out the contrast. I moved:
That this House views with deep regret the conditions under which the people of Lancashire are now and have for long been living deplores the wastage of natural resource acquired skill and human life that such conditions entail; declares that their continued existence is an indictment of statesmanship, and calls upon His Majesty's Government, whether or not such measures are within the limits of the existing social and economic order, to take such measures as may be necessary to secure to Lancashire's unemployed, part-employed and employed workers a standard of living commensurate with modern industrial potentialities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1937; Vol. 319, c. 1683.]
In the course of moving that Motion, I quoted figures supplied by the Government, showing that 670,000 people in Lancashire, out of less than five million, were living on public relief of one sort or another. There was a census of wages taken by the Weavers' Amalgamation in that year that showed that the average wages of a weaver were £1 12s. 6d. per week. The same census showed that not 10 per cent. of the most highly skilled workers in the industry were earning as much as 50s. a week, and the real situation was greatly obscured by the concealed unemployment which arose out of the peculiar working conditions and wage system of the industry.
There were other figures, given by myself and others who spoke in the Debate, which showed how continuously and rapidly the cotton industry was contracting. Nearly half a million people were employed in it in the middle of the 20's, and not much more than a third of a million, a drop of 30 per cent., 10 years later. The rate at which our foreign trade was being reduced was illustrated most effectively by a Conservative Member, I think, Sir Joseph Nall, then Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester. Because some of the figures quoted showed how rapid the contraction was, I would like to quote a few of them. After saying that India was the worst case, the hon. Gentleman went on:
… but it is not India alone with which we are concerned, because there are other countries with which we can do better deals with trade agreements … Egypt, which supplied a large volume of cotton used in the cotton industry, was once a good market. In 1932, Egypt bought 82 million square yards, and, in 1936, 64 million square yards. Morocco, a foreign market, in 1932 took 52 million square yards, and last year we sold Morocco four million square yards. To Iraq we sold 39 million square yards in 1932 and last year five million square yards; to the Dutch East Indies, 44 million square yards in 1932, and the figure dropped to 27 million square yards in 1936 … China, which was a market for 500 million square yards in prewar days
that is, pre-1914—
took 72 million square yards in 1932, and last year took four million square yards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1937; Vol. 319, c. 1726–7.]
That was a drop, in 20 years, from 500 million square yards to four million square yards.
The interesting thing was that in those days everybody accepted as an inescapable fact that the cotton industry could not recover, and could not again expand, and the problem of Lancashire was looked at in those days as one of introducing new industries and finding employment for Lancashire people outside the cotton trade. In that Debate, the Government reply was given by Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead, and in the course of his speech he quoted a statement by the general manager of the then Lancashire Industrial Development Council as follows:
Former spinning mills in the Oldham district, for instance, have been occupied by firms making perambulators and toys, cork board, spring interiors and clothing. Similar

buildings in the Bolton, Hyde and Stalybridge districts have been adapted to industries some of which are quite new to the particular locality, paper bag making, building materials, men's clothing, industrial starches, waterproof garments and brushes. In other districts, weaving sheds have been found admirably suitable for new business, beginning production of slippers (Blackburn), special cables (Ramsbottom), varnishes, paints and ancillary products (Hindley), metal stampings and turned parts (Atherton), leather goods (Blackburn), spring interiors (Walton-le-Dale). Some of these establishments, it is to be borne in mind, are either branch factories of firms in other parts of the country or represent transfers of businesses from the south of England or 'most satisfactory of all' have been set up by industrialists from the Continent.
After reading that quotation from an article by the general manager of the Lancashire Industrial Development Council, Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead said:
I think that makes a not unsatisfactory picture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1937; Vol. 319, c. 1712.]
I am not quarrelling with him about it, because in those days, everybody agreed that the problem of Lancashire was to take non-cotton industries into Lancashire, to accept its continuing contraction, and to seek to make it a place where other industries would go. It was regarded as a good thing that cotton mills in all branches of the industry should be turned over to other things.
The very first Bill which I saw put through this Parliament when I first became a Member in 1935 was the Cotton Spindles Bill. It was passed on exactly the same principle, exactly the same idea, namely, that a large part of the then cotton industry in Lancashire was redundant, and that the proper thing was to get rid of it as soon as possible. The principle of the Bill was that everyone who owned a spindle should pay something into a common pool, and that that pool should be used to buy up and scrap redundant spindles; not to buy them up and scrap them for the purpose of replacing them with better or more modern equipment, but for the definite purpose of bringing down the equipment of the industry to a much narrower field which was then contemplated for it as a permanent feature.
We have gone away from all that now. Today, the questions which the Government are being asked are questions about how to increase the labour force, how to re-equip the mills, how to


expand them, and how to expand our production. The Government must make up their mind whether we are to regard our present prosperous and expanding cotton industry as one which is to continue to expand, as one which is to remain permanently on its present level, or whether they contemplate that the time may come when we may have, once again, to go in for restriction and contraction, and the substitution of other industries for it.
A Question was asked the other day by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) about the recruitment of labour into the industry. The Minister we were all glad to note, was able to give a reassuring reply. There is no doubt that people in Lancashire are satisfied with the present conditions. They are not now underpaid or part-employed. Everybody is well and happily employed at wages that are not unsatisfactory, and, if they could be satisfied that those conditions were going to continue, there would never be any anxiety or trouble about maintaining ac adequately trained and equipped and willing labour force in the industry.
But over all this real prosperity and improvement there is the shadow of fear. There is the anxiety about whether they are again to be faced with conditions in other parts of the world which will render the maintenance of their present standards impossible, or, alternatively, lead to a new contraction of the industry. What worries them is, naturally, the danger that Japan will again be able to compete with them all over the world on conditions, as I said before, against which they cannot compete, ought not to be asked to compete, and, in any case, will not compete.
There is no present difficulty, but that is due only to temporary factors. The first factor is that Japan has not yet recovered her productive capacity to anything but a limited degree. We cannot take too much comfort even from that because such recovery as she has made in this field looks to the very places for its markets out of which we are most anxious to keep unfairly competitive activity. The other limiting factor is the currency question. We have an agreement under which Japan buys in sterling and the result of

that agreement is that we must necessarily regard Japan as a hard currency area so that there is less temptation or possibility of buying from her.
But neither of those conditions can conceivably be regarded as permanent, and both of them are rapidly growing less important than they have been. Nor, indeed, if we are to be objective and to understand the facts as they are, can anyone contemplate a situation in which 83 million Japanese can be prevented from making the goods by which they earn their living. I understand that the population there is now somewhere in the region of 83 million, and that within a decade it may reach 100 million. Japanese labour standards have improved. I understand that, translated into our money, the wage which a weaver gets is about £10 a month. That means that he is getting, on average, as much as was earned by 10 per cent of the most highly skilled of our own weavers in 1938. But that is no help. Lancashire cannot compete against a 50s. a week wage and maintain its own wage of £5, £6 or £7.
There was a Debate about this in December of last year, and I think that the Secretary for Overseas Trade replied. I do not think he would complain if I described his reply as, at any rate, neutral. He did not offer us much guidance. No one can suppose for a moment that this Government of all Governments is blind to the danger. We know that we can do a great deal at home by improving the efficiency, the make-up and set-up of our own industry to lower our costs tremendously, without affecting the standard of living of any of its workers. I know that this Government has done more in these post-war years to bring that about than all the previous Governments which preceded it since the Industrial Revolution. But, however much that may accelerate and improve, we shall not remove from the minds of Lancashire workers the fear which may still keep them and their children out of the industry, unless we assure them that they are going to be fully and completely protected when the Japanese industry is again on its feet—as it ought to be—from the unfair competition of a rice standard.
I wanted to say some more practical constructive things, but I think I have said enough to indicate to the House and


to the Government what are the anxieties in people's minds. I assure them that those are real and deep anxieties, and that Lancashire will be very grateful for any statement my hon. Friend can make which will tend to case them.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for raising this matter today. It is a subject which has been very near to me. I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman in making this plea to the Government—to say that this is of great concern to Lancashire and to ask that we should be told something about the Government's attitude and policy. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to a Debate on 14th December last year and to the reply to it by the Secretary for Overseas Trade. Really he said nothing whatsoever. I congratulate the new Parliamentary Secretary upon his appointment, and I hope that he will be able to tell us something of the attitude of the Government in this matter.
I do not have to tell the hon. Gentleman about conditions in Japan. He and I were there together, and I know the great interest he took in this matter when we were there. I know he is as concerned as anybody in this House. Usually, when we have had Debates on these matters a Member of the Government, who knows really nothing about the subject, replies and tells us that the answer to it all is to raise the standard of living of workers in Japan. It is said that that is the answer to unfair competition. I agree entirely that we want to raise the standard of living of workers in Japan, but that is not going to be done ill the foreseeable future. Wages have increased, working conditions are better, but it is going to take a very long time before any of the operatives in Japan have anything like the standard of living we have in this country.
We are told of the great progress which is being made in forming trade unions in Japan. Some progress has been made, although most of them are company trade unions and are not very effective. Trade unionism cannot be given to a country. It must grow up gradually, and it will take a considerable time before there is effective trade unionism in Japan. I am

sure that hon. Members opposite will be quite pleased with my conduct in Japan because I went round all the time advocating trade unionism as hard as I could.
It is very difficult to get any information as to what happens on the Far Eastern Commission. There is nothing in the Library about it from 1947 onwards. That is not the Librarian's fault. No information is provided by Washington. There are no minutes, there are only Press notices of what they want us to know and nothing else. Can we not have these proceedings made available to us in the Library of the House?
I do not know the Minister's personal views, but I hope he will look into it and make sure, as far as he can, that our voice is heard in the Far Eastern Commission and that records of the proceedings are available to hon. Members in the Library. Our interests and those of our American allies do not coincide entirely in Japan. We should recognise that. We should realise that their interests—and the pressure of Southern Senators in Congress is very great—do not entirely agree with the views of Lancashire.

Mr. H. Hynd: I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman in any way, but is he alleging, and if so has he any proof, that there is American capital invested in that industry in Japan?

Mr. Prescott: Most certainly there is American capital in the textile industry in Japan. There is also British capital. I do not know whether this has increased in the last two years or not.
We were told some considerable time ago that there would be an Anglo-American mission to Japan to investigate the textile industry there and report back. I do not know whether that mission did not go or whether, if it did not go, there is any suggestion that it still will go. Air Vice-Marshal Bouchier recently went to Japan and made investigations, though not on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I wonder whether the Government have had any communication with him on his return and, if so, with what effect and what representations he made to the Government.
I ask the Government to tell us what they propose to do about this Japanese threat, which is very much feared in Lancashire. I think it hinders the re-equipment of mills, the investment of capital


and the recruitment of labour. I was delighted with the figures given us showing an increase in recruitment of labour, but I am sure there would be far more recruiting for the mills if this potential threat were removed. There are many approaches to the problem of Japanese competition, such as limitation of spindles, the sharing of markets and the raising of the standards of life of the Japanese. All these things are vitally important.
It is a surprising thing that importations of Japanese textiles by many British Colonies now exceed what they were prewar. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said it was a potential threat. It is, in fact, an actual threat, happening now. These importations exceed the prewar figures in East African and West African Colonies. I have asked many questions in the House about the Congo Basin Treaties. Some hon. Members may wonder what those treaties are about. They give Japan preferential trading rights in African Colonies. What is to be the future of these treaties? The answer I have had in the past is that we must wait until we have a Japanese Peace Treaty. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade knows that this Peace Treaty is now under very active consideration. Can he tell us what is to happen with regard to the Congo Basin Treaties? I hope he will be able to tell us that something will be written into the peace treaty that will remove the threat that is hanging over Lancashire.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is not quite fair, is it, to describe the position under the Congo Basin Treaties as preferential treatment? Is it not, rather, a case of the most-favoured-nation clause, which I do not approve, except where the competition is fair? It is perhaps an overstatement to regard the Congo Basin Treaties as providing preferential trade.

Mr. Prescott: That is quite accurate. In fact, I think I told the hon. Gentleman so. I agree it is a slight inaccuracy to describe it as preferential trade, but even if it is the most-favoured-nation trade I want it abolished. Why should Japan have that benefit? It is very detrimental to us. We have talked about this Japanese business for five years now and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will not make a speech

like that made by the Secretary for Overseas Trade last time. Will something be written into the Peace Treaty? Can we have some assurance that in Lancashire we shall not face the terrible competition we faced before the war?
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the state of Lancashire before the war. That situation arose, in part, directly from the Japanese competition we are talking about now. He spoke about the wages of weavers averaging £1 12s. 6d. before the war. I do not know whether those figures are accurate or not, but we accept them. What are the wages now? Competition will be far worse in the future than in the past.
May I remind him, too, that the textile machinery industry in Japan is in first-class condition? They can re-equip their mills and can operate at 100 per cent. Have the Government considered diversifying industry in Japan? Quite apart from the interests of Lancashire it would be of benefit to Japan if industry there could be diversified. In view of the destruction that has taken place there is quite a possibility of remodelling and reformulating the economic life of Japan in the interests not only of the Japanese but of Lancashire itself. I hope some steps will be taken to that end.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not wish to be too controversial today, because I have found myself in agreement with the hon. Member to a considerable extent and I do not wish to spoil it. But the competition he is talking about before the war was, of course, largely contributed to by the failure of the Association of Employers here to support conventions on the subject. In the speech which I made in the Debate in 1937 I quoted some remarks by the Secretary of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners. I said:
This Association feels that the matter is one of greater importance than might appear at first sight. The matter is the seeking for regulation by international convention of a 40-hour week in the textile trade. … The workers are unanimously striving to have a convention recorded by the International Labour Conference, and many foreign Governments, notably Italy, France and the United States of America, are favourably inclined towards the project. Unless the textile employers take the opportunity of putting forward their opposition at every step, it is probable that the convention will be passed, and once it is in existence it will come more


prominently into the arena of political controversy, pressure may be brought to bear upon His Majesty's Government to ratify it and thereby bring a 40-hour week into legal operation in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd February, 1937; Vol. 319, c. 1689.]

Mr. Prescott: I am sorry, but I could not possibly deal with that intervention. It is far too lengthy for me to follow. I have made my point and I have asked my questions.
I conclude by saying, once again, that I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is in the position he holds. If we must have a Socialist Government, I am glad the hon. Gentleman occupies that position on the Front Bench. I hope that today he will be able to tell the House of some specific proposal which the Government have in mind.

2.53 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for giving us a further opportunity of discussing this important subject, and discussing it in rather new circumstances. The protagonist who opened the discussion in November, 1948, and who from this side of the House has done more to raise this important subject in the House, now occupies a seat on the Treasury Bench. I think we are all pleased that he is there. He is an employer in the industry and a man of the highest repute. He has a wide knowledge of the industry and brings to this subject qualities of integrity, knowledge and courage that we know will help him in his career.
At the same time my hon. Friend has to face a problem today. He has raised this matter. He has postulated questions which have not yet been answered, and although on both sides of the House we accept the fact that when a Member speaks from the Treasury Bench he does so with a necessary restraint and perhaps with increased knowledge, I am sure he will give us frank answers today.
My hon. Friend knows the first question. It is and always has been: What are the powers of General MacArthur in this matter? What are our powers on the Far Eastern Commission? How far can we make representations? How far have the representations which we have made in the past been acted upon? What right have the Australian Government,

who are more interested than we, to be consulted? What is it all about? As far as we can see, we see in Japan a benevolent dictatorship. It may very well be that General MacArthur is one of the most outstanding men of his generation. It may be that the work he has done in Japan merits the praise of the world. But we are concerned with certain aspects of the matter, and we want to know the answer. In fact, we are entitled to know.
I raised a question in the Debate in November, 1948, which has not been answered. I said that there was going to be sent from this country a trade union delegation. We were told that the right of collective bargaining had been abolished in Japan. That is important from our point of view. We were told that 20,000 unions have been created and that we were going to send a trade union delegation, but it never went. Why not? Who stopped it? What was the reason? Would it not have been a good thing if that delegation had gone?
The hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) put his case temperately, sincerely and ably, as he always does on this subject. That is a fairly generous tribute. I am sorry to be controversial, but in one sentence he raised what seems to me a very vital issue which separates the two sides of the House in this matter. He referred to the wage rates in Japan. He implied that our employment prospects were governed by the rate of wages there, the productivity there, and so on. I accept that. It is one of the instances of the old system of laissez-faire and of competitive nationalism.
But in the Debate in 1948, I myself postulated some problems. I referred to some essential contradictions—the inherent contradiction in my own constituency, which the hon. Gentleman knows so well, of the great and prosperous textile engineering exporting industry, and the textile producing industry, each of which has a different problem. We are exporting 80 per cent. of our textile machinery to equip foreign industry to compete with us. If we leave the statement like that, it is an inadequate statement. In a planned and organised society which had turned its back on laissez-faire that might be a good thing indeed. It would keep us in first-class employment, which would go elsewhere if we did not do it in a competitive society.
But we have had the answer to some of these contradictions in the course of the last few months. There has come out what I regard as one of the greatest State documents of the generation—the report of the expert committee arranged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations organisation on Measures for national and international full employment. Without wishing to introduce a partisan aspect in this matter, I must say that that document is the greatest defence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both during his period of office as Chancellor and as President of the Board of Trade, that has ever been penned.
It recommends the application in an international sphere of planning of all those measures of legalised planning which we have applied to industry here. It recommends the collection of statistics, the utilisation of Budget surpluses for the control of employment, and the exchange of agreements on the lines that the Organisation for European Recovery has already adumbrated. It is really important. That is the answer to one great difficulty.
Of course, we do not want a Carthaginian peace. We want to see Japan come back into the comity of nations and see her people attaining a reasonable standard of life. But the point one must make is this. I heard an hon. Member opposite last night say that on questions of joint consultation employers and employees can get together in some industries and dispel their fears of the future. But in the cotton industry they are all afraid. That fear is a constant menace to every scheme which the Government introduce. It is a menace to the free negotiation between employer and employee. It is a constant threat to the possibility of complete reorganisation in the cotton industry. Every man in the industry thinks that the conditions of 1923 may come again.
Every spinner who contemplates putting in new machinery at the present high prices is worried about what is coming. Every union which represents his employees is worrying about him embarking upon schemes of reform which can be used against them in times when prosperity has ceased and when unemployment is rife. That is why it is essential

that we should have an assurance in this matter. That is why it is essential that the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary should go to the cotton industry and make clear what is the planned market of the future.
I accept what the hon. Member for Darwen said. There is no question that in the colonial territories, where we are embarking upon wider schemes of reform and capital expenditure than ever before, Japanese competition is already becoming a menace for the future. Here let me say that I would like to see President Truman's Fourth Point used in this connection. Measures should be taken to give priority to British goods in some of the colonial territories, and we ought to have an assurance that this will be done. I hope that in the course of the Debate after the Recess we shall be able to give some collective attention to the major problem of economic planning on wider lines. I hope we shall be able to know a little more about what happened in the Washington conversations. Even if an election be coming in America, I hope that we shall be able to talk freely on the basis of the Fourth Point and of colonial investment on the basis of the report of the United Nations organisation on world planning. But in the meantime we have to put forward our little local issues and worries.
May I put one before I close? We were told in the Debate of November, 1948, that Japan had a large measure of control over the Chinese textile industry. Of course, the situation in China has vastly altered since then, but before that situation altered £4 million worth of orders were placed for British textile machinery, most of which, I hope, will be made at Oldham, and payments were made on account. We are concerned about whether the change in the Far Eastern position will affect those orders and how our industry will be affected: we are equally concerned to know whether those orders are to be implemented.
We are concerned also about the state of the re-equipment of the cotton industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said that the present Government had done very much—so they have; but perhaps in that sphere they have done more in planning than in the realm of achievement. So far as one can see, not


more than 20 per cent. of our home textile machinery production is at present going to the local industry. The reason it is not going into local industry is the fear of competition, to which I have referred. New machinery does not, perhaps, give any very great increase in production. It is not a very attractive proposition unless one is sure of some years of prosperity in the future.
That is why the particular subject which we are discussing today—perhaps I repeat myself when I say this—hangs over Lancashire like a cloud which it is the duty of the Government to try to dispel. That is why we are concerned about this problem, and we ask my hon. Friend, when he replies to this discussion, to give us as full and frank information as he can, and try to give us information upon which we can act and upon which we can go and consult with our people and talk more fully and more freely about the future of this great industry.

3.2 p.m.

Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who opened the Debate, dealt at some length with the pre-war history of the cotton industry in Lancashire, and some of us who then represented Lancashire constituencies on both sides of the House remember the situation in those days all too well. I thought that as the hon. Member's speech progressed he vindicated more and more the action of the Governments in those days before the war, in spite of much that was heard at the recent General Election, as he drew attention to the tremendous efforts which were made by those Governments to deal with the situation. After everything else had failed we turned our attention to alternative industries, and, in the circumstances, that was an excellent thing, as indeed the hon. Member described it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I certainly tried to avoid a controversy. I should not have intervened except that I do not want it to be accepted that I was paying any compliment to the Governments of those days. On the Motion which I moved that day, in a House in which we on this side had only one Member out of four, we nearly defeated the Government; we ran them to 99 votes against 92. The Lancashire Members, including those not of our party, certainly did not think the Govern-

ment were doing what they ought to have done.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I certainly was not intending to introduce a controversial note when we are all this afternoon so much in harmony.
It is true, as has been said, that in the cotton areas there is more anxiety on this question today than on anything else. When the reports came through in the Press, both before and during the recent campaign that in this country we were receiving shirts via Hong Kong which might have been made in Japan, together with other rumours of that sort, there was very considerable tension and a fear that we were heading for the grim days of the past. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us exactly what truth there was in that rumour, and how much truth there is in the various reports that a good deal of material is now reaching us in one way or another from Japan.
I want to turn now to the question of Japan itself, which has not been mentioned this afternoon at any great length. We must not forget that Japan is a manufacturing nation and has to import nearly all her essential raw materials. She also has to import no less than three million tons of foodstuffs a year, and that figure will become larger as the years go on, as her population, as has been said, is increasing at such a rate. It is some 83 million now as compared with 72 million in 1941. At the same time we have to bear in mind that this immense population has to contain itself now in much less territory than before the war, owing to the loss of her overseas possessions; and that only 16 per cent. of the land area in Japan is fit for cultivation.
All this leads to this point, that Japan is forced to sell goods in the world market in order to live. She has made a wonderful recovery since the war. Last year she balanced her budget, and her industrial production was much higher than it was in 1948. Her exports doubled over those of that year, and were three times what they were in 1947.
As regards the cotton industry, with which we are specially concerned today, I think the following figures will be interesting. In 1949, Japanese production of cotton yarn reached 347 million lb., an increase of 27 per cent. over than of 1948, and it is planned to increase this by no


less than 25 per cent. in the present year. Indeed, if the Japanese were able to plan for all they want they would like a production this year of no less than 621 million lb. The exact number of spindles is not known, but it is reported to have increased from four million to six million, and I am informed that the Japanese themselves have asked to have eight million spindles as being a reasonable number.
As regards exports of cotton textile fabrics, a reasonable estimate for the present year is no less than 800 million yards, and the Japanese themselves have been mentioning a figure of 1,000 million yards for export; out of a total production of 1,600 million yards—which is considerably in excess of last year's total production, which was under 1,000 million yards. I say this to show the House how serious the position is, how great is the production already in Japan, and how much it is likely to grow during the coming year, and, indeed in future years. It shows the eagerness to encourage and increase their production and exports by every possible means in their power.
The occupation, as we know, is proving to the United States of America to be a very expensive business. Occupation of a defeated country by another country is always an expensive business. Last year and the year before it cost the American taxpayer 500 million dollars each year. This year that amount has been cut to 320 million dollars—for the year beginning 1st July—which is some 34 per cent., but, even so, the cost is indeed high. It is not surprising, and no one can blame America—I think we should do the same ourselves—for being anxious to cut down this great figure at the earliest possible moment. They want to put the Japanese on their own feet, to rehabilitate them—to stop starvation and disease, but, so long as they do that, to let them stand alone and go ahead with their own industry and its development, as soon as possible. Let us not count too much on any United States restrictions being placed on Japanese output, especially in this "peaceful" industry, because I do not think we can count any longer on action along those lines. This means that we must work out our own salvation, probably even more than we have

anticipated. It is more essential than ever that our plans should be ready.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) and others have raised many issues, and I hope we shall have a full answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I also should like to pay tribute. He and I once met on the same territory during a General Election, and it is, therefore, all the more pleasing to me to see him in the position he holds today. We ask the Government to realise the very serious problem which, even now, begins to face us, and which is likely to face us more and more seriously in the future. We hope that this afternoon we shall have a real assurance that the Government will go into this question very fully; and not only that they will go into it, but that they have plans which they are preparing in case the dreadful day arrives.

3.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): First, I wish to thank every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon for referring to me in such nice and gentle terms. I doubt whether they will be referring to me in similar terms when they leave the Chamber this afternoon. This is a very complex problem. That is demonstrated when we remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) in the same breath mentioned the competition from Japanese cotton goods and also inquired about what had happened to an order for four million spindles, from China, for somebody to use in the same trade. That in itself gives a very good idea of the complexity of the situation.
I find that the three or four weeks that I have been at the Board of Trade is not sufficient time to solve this problem, and that I might need another week or two! I think everybody will agree that this problem is of the greatest concern to those who represent Lancashire constituencies, and to those whose livelihood this industry has been throughout the years, and so long as I am at the Board of Trade I shall never cease to keep it to the front; it never will be forgotten. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, the limiting factor at the moment is the hardness of the Japanese currency. I think the concern of all hon. Members this afternoon is


more on the long-term than on the short-term. As my hon. Friend said, we cannot expect the balance of payments difficulty to impede the Japanese export programme indefinitely.
There has been mention of the disturbing of the pattern of world trade between the wars. Whatever pattern was disturbed between the wars, it was nothing like as big as the disturbance after the Second World War. In this case Japan lost her Empire and many outlets for her trade were closed up. Owing to the war there was a growth of secondary industries, including cotton, in many countries of the world, Brazil, Argentine, India and also China, about which I shall say a word later. There was also the rare phenomenon that the United States of America emerged after the war as a very big exporter nation. That in itself is one of the most significant facts.
Another thing to remember—perhaps not as a reason for such pessimism as has been suggested in this Debate—is that world exports of cotton piece goods today are probably down to less than two-thirds of the pre-war volume. How much the creation of secondary industries by many countries of the world takes up the remaining one-third, I am not in a position to say. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) mentioned the population problem. It is now 83 million. I suppose it was something under 70 million when the war began, and it is interesting to remember, as my hon. Friends who went to Japan will recall, that there has been a spurt in the population of Japan, owing in no small measure to an edict issued in 1943 by the Emperor to the effect that an increase in the population was very much desired—not for World War Two.
If we take the 1932–36 period as par, total industrial production in Japan is 82, production in manufacturing is 79, and in textiles 27.8. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne drew attention to the fact that that really was not a very significant figure, and that if there was the menace now on the 27.8 figure, what will it be like if it goes to 100 per cent.? I think that was the inference he meant to draw.
There is no question about the possibility of our imposing restrictions in Japan itself on the size of the Japanese

export trade in cotton textiles. As has been pointed out, Japan must be permitted to achieve a reasonable standard of living. That is accepted by everyone and to close the present gap between her essential imports of food and raw materials, and what she gets for the sale of her exports is essential. Japan already has a deficit costing the American taxpayer—not as large a figure as that suggested by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton—about 400 million dollars per annum. It cannot, therefore, be said in those circumstances that our policy is to oppose the development of the Japanese industry on other than strategic grounds. I am bound to point out to the House that it was laid down in a direction before the surrender of Japan that Japan should be permitted to man such industries as would sustain her economy and allow an extraction of just reparations, but not those which would enable her to re-arm.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend says there is no possibility of restrictions on Japan by us. I understood that the Supreme Commander had introduced a restrictive policy, and my authority for that was a speech delivered by my hon. Friend himself in 1948. Could my hon. Friend deal with such powers?

Mr. Rhodes: If my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) will be patient, I will deal with that point. The eventual participation of Japan in world trade relations was to be permitted. Japanese textile industries are relatively more behind their pre-war production than most other industries, but they still constitute 60 per cent. by value of the total Japanese exports, in spite of the efforts of General MacArthur's Administration to encourage a more even spread of Japan's industrial effort and to enlarge the light engineering section at the expense of the textile. The average export of cotton fabrics from 1934 to 1936 was more than 2,000 million square yards. In 1948, the export was 338 million and, in 1949, 800 million square yards.
Japanese goods processed in the United Kingdom have been excluded from the United Kingdom figures. Japanese exports of cotton piece goods were larger than those of the United Kingdom in those years. It is therefore clear that in the limited markets now available to


Japan her competition in cotton textiles will have to be taken very seriously. I have a lot of figures, which I will not quote during the time at my disposal. I shall cut some of them out. I will come to the question of floor prices.
The system of floor prices in operation was abandoned on 26th October of last year. This decision was taken owing to the automatic raising of Japanese export prices because of the devaluation of sterling. The yen of course remained fixed to the dollar. Those floor prices were only a means of ensuring that Japan did not fail to earn foreign exchange through weak selling in a sellers' market. They were not really designed to be a curb, and they were not intended to be a restriction upon the competitive ability of Japanese industry. General MacArthur accompanied the removal of control with the statement that the Japanese Government were being instructed to prevent dumping and that steps would be taken to prevent any revival of pre-war unfair practices.
There are very encouraging signs that steps will be taken in Japan itself to prevent dumping by Japanese exporters, for example by quotation of export prices lower than domestic prices for the same goods. The Japanese Prime Minister made a statement to this effect in the Diet, expressing concern that exporters should not quote unnecessarily low prices and should not, as they have done in the past, frequently vary their quotations. Both these features had a depressing effect upon Japanese markets all over the world, beyond the importation of Japanese textiles. Much of Japan's trade brought goods to consumers who could not previously afford them, but the markets were greatly affected by uncertainty about the level of Japanese prices and the quantities that would be available.
Among the unfair practices which have definitely been put down during the last few months have been the fraudulent use of foreign trade marks and the copying of British and other designs. Quite a lot of attention from General MacArthur and the Administration there has been given to the matter and a lot of success has been achieved. With regard to labour costs and to what has been done in that field, there is now a 48-hour week—and I

mean a 48-hour week—in comparison with the 60 hour week before the war. Overtime is now paid for a day in excess of eight hours. These things which have happened in Japan are tremendous steps forward.
There is a tremendous improvement in dormitory conditions, and the old prepaid contract system has gone by the board. It used to be possible before the war for a manufacturer to go to a father and say, "I will give a three-year contract for your child," give him the money and take the girl and make her work 60 hours a week, but that sort of thing has now gone. Another thing is that the school-leaving age is now 15, and in case a knowledgeable hon. Member says, "Yes, but you count the age of the Japanese child as two on the 1st January following the year the child is born," I have examined that and find that it no longer applies and that when they say "15" they really are 15. Eighty-five per cent. of female workers are aware that labour legislation is in existence. That is a tremendous step forward from when we went out there, because then nobody knew. This information is very reliable.
I now turn to one or two of the questions which have been put. There is the Far Eastern Commission. I had better be careful what I say now, but I shall say it. General MacArthur, as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers—this is not Question time by the way—is responsible to the Far Eastern Commission which sits in Washington and on which are represented the 13 Powers which were most directly engaged in the war. The veto operates in this Commission, and it is true to say that the veto comes down on pretty well every controversial issue. I do not need to say any more than that in the absence of a policy decision by the Far Eastern Commission, General MacArthur has the right to issue interim directives on matters of urgency in the interests of the occupation. Therefore, if matters are continually controversial and the veto comes down upon them, General MacArthur issues his own directions.
I come to the question raised about the Anglo-American Mission. There has been a lot of talk about this, and many questions have been asked. That is one of the reasons why I have to be circumspect this afternoon. One of


the last things said to me on Wednesday night, when I was in Manchester talking to the master cotton spinners and the unions about this matter, was, "You are having a Debate about this on Thursday. For goodness sake be careful so that you do not prejudice our mission." The situation is that the Cotton Board and the Government have been most anxious that a joint mission should go to Japan representing the United Kingdom and the United States cotton textile industries.
Sir Raymond Streat is on a visit in this connection—he may be back at this moment—and has definitely reached agreement with his American colleagues on the final arrangements, and the mission is expected to proceed to Tokio in the near future, maybe at the end of this month or the beginning of the next. We very much welcome this proposal and regard it as a hopeful initiative in dealing with the long-term problems involved. For the information of those who are interested, I would say that the mission will be on a purely industrial level, the members will be chosen by the two industries concerned and not by the Governments, and neither His Majesty's Government nor the United States Government will be in any sense responsible for any recommendations that may be made. I think the House will agree that this is a realistic approach which recognises that Japan will compete in world markets and couples with that recognition a determination to pursue methods of joint consultation and education in the belief that the worst evils of Japanese competition before the war can be avoided.

Mr. William Teeling: rose—

Mr. Rhodes: No, I have no time; Mr. Speaker is tapping the arm of his Chair now. With regard to the Congo Basin Treaty, this is a hardy annual. What I remember about the Treaty of Berlin; 1885, is that most of the commercial states in Europe were signatories. It was abrogated during the 1914–1918

war and picked up again by the Allies, including Japan, who was a signatory to it. The U.S.A. was in it but did not sign for some considerable time afterwards. The treaty was made originally to protect the interests of the Africans who, as everybody knows, have been on a low standard of living for a long time. It means that any signatory to the Congo Basin Treaty agrees that there should be no discrimination.

Mr. Prescott: Will it remain unaltered?

Mr. Rhodes: It has to be unanimous. This is really a Foreign Office matter and it will have to be decided as and when the Peace Treaty is reached. I hope that it will be kept in front of the representatives when the time comes. With regard to most favoured nations, this Government has not been given credit for all the efforts that are made on behalf of the industrial community.
Whilst the problem of Japanese competition may not be as actual as it might be in the home market because of the balance of payments and the restriction of our imports from Japan, we recognise that it might be necessary to help Lancashire to meet abnormal competition when the present balance of payments difficulties have disappeared. The circumstances then prevailing would have to be taken into account in any decisions which might be made when the time arrives.
There is, however, one aspect of the question about which it would be well to clear our minds now, because over the greater part of the world the question would be, not what can the United Kingdom Government do to help, but what, if anything, will other Governments do? It is possible that the domestic cotton industries of other countries will seek protection against Japanese competition if it is abnormal, and it is possible also that the Japanese industry itself will be anxious not to create a situation similar to the one which led to the taking of special measures against Japanese goods in many countries before the war.

SCOTTISH FISHING INDUSTRY

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has occupied nearly one-sixth of the precious time at my disposal but, nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the state of the Scottish fishing industry. Naturally I am most interested in the lot of the fishermen and their families who inhabit the East Fife coast, but the burdens they have to bear now are shared equally by inshore and herring fishermen in every port along the Scottish seaboard: and they are of such a character as to warrant the most urgent and sympathetic attention of the House and the country.
The plea I make today is for action, swift effective action, on the part of the Government, to prevent a crisis overwhelming this vital industry and its magnificent people. Never in its long history has this House turned a deaf ear to the just claims of British seamen. I hope it will listen today for the claims I and some hon. Friends have to express are indeed just and very serious. Crisis, unfortunately, is not unknown to the fishing communities. In a trade based on home ports, but as to a large part dependent on and in all branches affected by movements overseas, it is inevitable that changing world conditions may at any time work havoc on its prosperity.
In the early 30's, when I first came to this House, a crisis of markets nearly destroyed the herring industry. Vast catches were coming in which the accustomed foreign markets in Russia and on the Continent were unable to absorb. For my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), myself and others, most of whom have now left the House, it was a time of great anxiety. Out of that crisis was born the Herring Industry Board with the duty, as we hoped, to take over the whole function of marketing and, in important respects, to re-organise and re-equip the herring fleet so that it might face its new problems with confidence and success.
Today, after five years' mismanagement of our national affairs, a new crisis has rushed upon the trade, this time a crisis of costs, the costs of boats, gear, operations and transport. In all these departments prices have rocketed far beyond

the experience of any other business in the country and to such an extent as to threaten the imminent and wholesale collapse of the trade. Hon. Members must not think I am exaggerating here
As if deliberately to turn the screw on the fisherman's grave anxieties, His Majesty's Government now propose, I understand, substantially to reduce the financial aid hitherto made available to the Herring Industry Board to inshore fishermen; to continue, despite protests and the plainest facts, the damaging import of overseas supplies of fish; and, most recently, as a master stroke of damage, to abolish the flat rate transport system, which alone makes it possible for Scottish crews to sell their produce at competitive prices in the great inland markets. It is an amazing record of ineptitude and irresponsibility.
Let me examine the case in detail. As most hon. Members know, the fisherman depends chiefly upon three factors for the successful prosecution of his trade. He depends on the personal skill of himself and his crew, on the efficiency and sufficiency of his boat and gear and upon the availability of swift, cheap, transport to move the produce of his labours. His skill, fortunately, has never been in question, nor his enterprise, nor his courage, nor his restless endeavour. From these precious assets in peace as in war this country has always drawn strength and security and it will be a sad day for us if ever those assets should fade away. But what value are they all when the conditions under which the fisherman works are such that he cannot achieve the elementary objective of making ends meet, or making a slight surplus, because the cost of everything he uses in his trade has soared to impossible heights?
Had the inshore industry been based like the trawler section or, if hon. Members like, the great co-operative movement, on a large aglomoration of capital, which might stand the strain of a temporarily profitless period, we might not perhaps have felt such urgent concern. But the men for whom I and my hon. Friends plead today are none of them great capitalists. It is the essence of the inshore and the herring industry organisation that the boats and gear are owned in partnership by the crews themselves—countless numbers of small men, each contributing his modest share, and none


possessing the resources to withstand the heavy tide of economic misfortune which now assails them. It is because of these conditions and the substantial annual losses of nets, gear and equipment caused by tempest, storm and ill luck, that the rising cost of capital equipment has become so extremely serious a problem.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Robertson), who only recently was responsible for the fishing industry in Scotland, and who should therefore know his facts, gave us some figures about three weeks ago. Ring nets before the war, he said, cost £50, today they cost £350; 120 fathom rope which used to cost £1 now costs £29; herring drift nets, which used to cost £3 now costs £15. In other words, according to the hon. Member, herring nets are up 500 per cent., ring nets 700 per cent., and rope 900 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), who is an acknowledged authority upon these matters, later informed us that seine nets have increased in price by 600 per cent., diesel boats by 700 per cent. and herring drifters by no less than 1,000 per cent. since pre-war days. According to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian the price paid to the fisherman for the herring he catches today is only 100 per cent. more than before the war.
But let us compare the position in 1945 and now, that is to say since His Majesty's present advisers became, as they boasted, "the masters now." The cost of boats—

Mr. Edward Evans: rose—

Mr. Stewart: We are working to a time-table. Perhaps the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak later. Since 1945 the cost of boats has gone up between 30 and 40 per cent., boat engines by over 50 per cent. and rope by 100 per cent., while the cost of nets and gear has gone up to a similar extent. The rise in the cost of living for the country as a whole in the same period has been about one-fifth, and the result of the election showed how keenly the people felt that rise. But it is apparent that for the general run of the articles the fishermen needs for his daily work, the rise has been four times as much and is still rising. When the flat rate transport

system is abolished, the increase will be the equivalent of five times that of the general rise in the cost of living throughout the country.
That is why I claimed at the election, and reassert in the House today, that of all sections of the community the fishermen have suffered most—far and away the most—as a result of the war and the last five years of inflation. While other producers, farmers, farm workers, miners, transport men, engineers, etc., have received increases of wages or prices to compensate them to some extent for rising costs, the fishermen today are waging an almost hopeless battle against infinitely higher expenses, without any comparable return. It is for that reason I ask on their behalf of this honourable and just House that justice be now done to these gallant beleaguered men.
I do not underrate the difficulties. I am not suggesting lavish subsidies. But if, as I think the House will agree, it is in the interests of food production, national security and the preservation of rugged individual and national character to preserve the vigorous life of the communities who inhabit our fishing ports, I say that the Government should at least avoid deliberate aggravation of the trouble and should instead endeavour to strengthen the hand of all those organisations which Parliament has authorised to guide and assist the fishing industry.
Let me mention one or two possibilities. If the flat rate transport system in its present form must be abandoned, then an alternative scheme in a different form must take its place. I would ask, is such an alternative being considered? The Government have all power in this matter. They have complete control over the railway transport, and no excuse therefore is possible, or can be tolerated, for failure to act constructively upon this vital issue.
Second, if foreign imports must be considered, and I agree that they must, cannot their timing be controlled so as to avoid their present destructive effects? In the early weeks of the present year large catches of prime herring were being obtained on the West coast of Scotland; but because Norwegian herring were being imported at precisely the same time these luscious fish from Scotland, incomparable in quality, were, on many days and at many markets, almost unsaleable. I have


sent evidence to the Minister of Food about that, yet when I put these points to him in this House his brave and brilliant retort was:
I do not think … that any action on my part is needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 5.]
Thirdly, if economies in national expenditure are essential, and I agree that they are, must they be made at the expense of the most useful and productive Departments of the State? In the Civil Estimates for the Scottish Office I see that assistance for inshore fishermen is to be halved next year and the loan to fishermen's co-operative societies to be reduced to one-tenth of what it was before. The Herring Industry Board grants—advances for boats, for developing export markets and in winter herring—is to be reduced by no less than 20 per cent. It seems incredible that action of that kind should be taken at this time.
Again, if taxes and duties and imposts must fall upon articles, must they necessarily be placed upon the very tools of trade by which the fishermen earn their living. Is not it clearly in the national interest that nets, ropes, boats, engines and all the components that go to make them should be relieved at any rate of some of the present heavy burden of taxation? It is in this and similar directions that I believe justice can be done, and with a will might be done now.
I do not know whether the Government propose to do anything, yet they must know that dark clouds overhang this industry. Never in my 17 years experience in this House have I seen evidence of so much concern on the part of hon. Members who represent fishing communities and so much responsible and solemn agitation on the part of the industry itself.

Mr. Edward Evans: Nonsense!

Mr. Stewart: Deputations have waited upon Ministers and protests have been made to them. They must be aware of the facts, but despite it all we still await one single piece of constructive policy. Is not it possible for the Government to emerge from its dark and secret confabulations? If indeed they have no constructive plans to offer let them say so and give way to others who have plans. If, on the other hand, they believe they can save

this industry from what may well be wholesale cessation of operations, let them act now; for I warn them time is short if that calamity is to be avoided.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: It is rather surprising to hear the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) saying that the Government have done nothing constructive for the fishing industry. If he will look at the legislation for the last four and a half years, he will find not one or two, but three Statutes designed to improve the conditions of fishermen and the fishing industry at large.
I do not intend to follow the hon. Member in his general survey of the fishing industry, because I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak; and I wish to confine myself to one particular feature which militates against the efficiency of the fishing industry. It relates to the loading, stowage and use of coal on trawlers. This, I think, can be dealt with by regulation, but if it be not done by regulation I suggest that there should be some legislative effort made to deal with it.
The present system is dangerous to crews and has already caused loss of life and much injury to the crews of trawlers. It is inefficient and wasteful to producer and consumer alike. It arises from the fact that many of the fishing fleets are old, in bad repair and unsuitable for the voyages which they have to undertake. Many of the ships, and, indeed, many of the fleets, are from 35 to 50 years old, and were built for short voyages, but, in the exigencies of today, have to undertake long voyages as far as the Faroes and Iceland. For long voyages of that kind, a considerable supply of coal is necessary, but these vessels have no convenience for the stowage of coal for such long voyages.
The obvious remedy is that there should be large and generous provision for new boats, for the repair of old boats and better accommodation for the loading and stowage of coal. This is not a new problem, because in 1943 the Scottish Council of Industry appointed a Committee to deal with this and kindred problems, and its Report stated:
The existing fleet has undoubtedly been Involved in unnecessarily heavy charges owing to inefficient organisation of certain subsidiary


undertakings and the lack of modern plant particularly for coaling. If the industry intends to continue using coal for propulsion in spite of the cost of transport to, and of storage in, Aberdeen, it is essential that modern coaling plant should be installed. The indications are, however, that oil, for which storage already exists, may be more extensively used in future, in which case facilities should be provided for piping it along the quay for delivery to the vessels.
I hope the Minister will take note of the need of better provision for the stowage, loading and use of coal, and do whatever he can, either by way of regulations or otherwise, to see that that need is remedied.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to traverse ground which has already been covered, but I would like to say a few words in support of the plea made by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) for further consideration of this most serious situation. In particular, as regards gear, I would ask the Under-Secretary to continue the inquiries which he is already making to see if there is indeed a monopoly or price ring at home, because there is some evidence that fishing gear made in Britain is sold abroad at a much lower price than in this country.
On the subject of decontrol, I would point out that the transport levy is a levy on the fishing industry and is not a tax on the consumer. The situation of all the Scottish fishermen will be very serious if they have to meet heavy freight charges, but the situation of Shetland fishermen will be doubly serious. They will not only have to meet freight charges from Aberdeen to the south, but also from Lerwick to Aberdeen and from such places as Whalsey and Yell to Lerwick.
The fishing communities of Scotland are composed of people who have been born and bred into the fishing fleets. We all know the contribution these men made to our food supplies in two wars. They have helped to keep open the approaches to these islands, and we should do all we can to help them, because we shall never replace them. We are told that some prices for fresh fish may rise. Perhaps there may be a small premium on flat fish, but not on haddocks, and the price of whiting may fall heavily.
If these fishermen cannot get a living, they must of necessity leave the sea. If

we are to maintain them, there must be a co-ordinated policy. The Government have encouraged fishermen to spend money on gear and boats, and £700,000 is outstanding in loans under the 1949 Act alone. We hope money is to be spent on piers and harbours which are lacking in the case of so many Shetland communities. The Herring Board have spent great sums on freezing plants and in other ways, but all will be lost if the fishermen do not get a fair price for their fish.
I want to make three suggestions to the Government. First of all, I agree with the hon. Member for East Fife that some device for maintaining the flat rate should be revised. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will also consider postponing the date on which the flat rate is taken off. I am told the Norwegians can do a certain amount of winter herring fishing in the seas of North Scotland. Will the Under-Secretary inquire from the Herring Board whether there is any possibility that some British herring fishing might take place in those waters? Would it not also be possible to use cold freeze plant to freeze white fish and get over the difficulty of glut and slump?

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I intervene to support the plea of the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart). The Government should be under no illusion whatever concerning the seriousness of the position as it affects the inshore fishermen of Scot land. A deputation has seen the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Food this week and has made the position abundantly clear.
Today, on landing, the price of fish is twice what it was before the war, but the cost of catching is five times greater. There are many cases where non-partner members of a crew are getting up to £10 a week and the partner members of the crew are losing money week after week and month after month. The hon. Gentleman must know about cases where owners of vessels obtained under the Inshore Fishing Act and the Herring Industry Act have not been able to pay their insurance premiums for last year. There are 27 cases already known to the Secretary for Scotland where vessels have not been able to pay these standing charges. As the hon. Member for Fife, East, has stated, this state of affairs has


been due to conditions over which the fishermen have no control.
I charge the Government with lack of policy in this matter because they suddenly removed the two props from the already over-weighted economy of the Scottish inshore fishing industry, namely the flat rate for transport and the subsidy, without counter-balancing action. The result is that the fishermen have been left high and dry. The day may be rapidly approaching when fishermen in the north, who have been inveigled into sinking their all to obtain vessels, are going to curse the Inshore Fishing Industry Act and the Herring Industry Act. The Government are causing complete chaos in the economy of the North of Scotland.
Warnings were given from this side of the House, when the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill was before the House. They have been given subsequently, but they have been ignored. Action is wanted now. Constructive policy is wanted immediately. Now we have another interregnum, the Easter Recess, and during that time the flat rate and the subsidy are going to be removed. What is going to happen to the industry before Parliament meets again? Time is not on our side. I urge the hon. Gentleman to use every effort he can, in consultation with his colleagues, to grapple with this problem of life or death for our Scottish inshore fishermen.

4.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): There have been more matters raised in this Debate than I can possibly answer in the time that remains with me. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) mentioned the coaling of ships. I should like to go into that and see if we can do something about it. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pleaded that the Herring Industry Board should encourage and facilitate winter fishing and the extension of quick-freeze plants to permit heavier landings and to deal with them over a longer period. We have to give thought to these matters, but I think it would be better just now if I were to devote what time remains to dealing with the problem that is immediately before the industry.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) charged us with a mismanagement of the nation's affairs that has given rise to difficulties. He has charged us with ineptitude and irresponsibility. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said it was clear we have no policy at all for this industry.

Mr. Duthie: It was not a question of general policy. It was the policy that was implicit in the Inshore Fishing Industry Act. What I objected to was the removing of the two props which were keeping the industry in some state of equilibrium, without having some counter-policy to be put immediately into effect.

Mr. Edward Evans: You asked for it.

Mr. Fraser: I hope I am not misrepresenting what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banff said. He said we had no stated policy for this industry, and what he and his hon. Friend are complaining about is that we have decided, at this stage and at this time, to leave this industry free to the vagaries of private enterprise. We have, as it were, allowed this industry to be put in the position in which hon. Gentlemen opposite want to place every industry in this country. We are not controlling and regimenting them. There are no organised controls impeding this industry. They are able to buy gear from private enterprise. After 15th April they can sell fish in the free market and obtain the biggest price without any restrictions anywhere. The protagonists of free enterprise are now saying that this will not do.
Let us look at the position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has said, the industry has asked for this. The British Trawl-owners Federation, which represents the major portion of the industry of Great Britain, has been pressing for the removal of control for at least two years. In 1945, when I had not been long in the Scottish Office, I remember having to consider a resolution from Scottish inshore fishermen demanding the removal of control. We said at the time we could not do it. We had to protect consumers against rising prices. That was the only control—the ceiling price. We said it would be unfair and improper to remove it. But they wanted it. It is true that


since then the inshore fishermen in Scotland changed their minds. It is true that the trawler owners in Aberdeen are a bit worried about the removal of controls.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: They are changed conditions.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman refers to changed conditions. In the course of the Debate he said, "I want to make it clear that I am not asking for subsidies." I wonder what he was asking for. How else are we to deal with the problem?

Mr. Stewart: I made four suggestions.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but all the four suggestions involved Government subvention. The British Trawlowners Federation for two years have been pressing for the removal of controls. The other sections of the industry have been against continuing controls, although some of them are now in favour of controls. We imposed a ceiling price beyond which the fish would not be sold. There was no guaranteed price, merely a ceiling price. In consequence of the ceiling price, the industry agreed to a scheme whereby there would be a flat rate paid for transport. The industry paid this. There was no Government subvention in it at all.
Indeed, let me say this to the hon. Member for Fife, East: I doubt very much whether the removal of the flat rate transport scheme will have any adverse effect in his constituency at all. Bear in mind that only a little more than a quarter of the inshore fish is transported south of the Border. All the fish that is transported short distances in Scotland before it is sold will cost less to transport after 15th April than it has cost in the last two or three years. The people in the hon. Member's constituency will be advantaged, although, as far as I can gather, the fishing ports represented by the hon. Member for Banff will be disadvantaged, but it must be remembered that this scheme has only been operated with the concurrence of the industry and we have no power to continue this scheme in face of opposition from the industry.
There was also the inshore fishermen's subsidy of 10d. a stone, which involved control. But let us see how we got this 10d. subsidy. The inshore fishermen have always told us, and in 1945 a deputation

told us, when they wanted de-control, that they were landing much fresher fish than were landed from the trawlers, but that a far better price was always obtained in the open market. They said that if there was a ceiling price, the trawler owners would get the same price and the inshore fishermen must therefore have a subsidy. They got a subsidy of 10d. a stone. It has been said that they could get more than 10d. in excess of the price obtained by the trawler men. The position now is that with the removal of control they are free to get more than the 10d. which can be earned by the trawler men if the mechants and the public are willing to pay.

Commander Galbraith: Does not that depend to some extent on the amount of foreign fish imported?

Mr. Fraser: The amount of foreign fish imported should not affect the position at all. These people have always told us that they provided a quality product, that they got fresh fish, and that the fish obtained from foreign countries was not fresh at all and could not be compared with the higher priced quality product.

Mr. Grimond: When the fishermen could have got a higher price for their fish, they were not allowed to do so. Now, when they cannot get a higher price, the control is removed.

Mr. Fraser: It is true that in 1941 the Coalition Government decided that to protect the consumers in this country the Government should impose ceiling prices for very many goods, and they included fish. But after the war the fishing industry asked to have this control removed, and the major part of the industry is now begging us to remove it. We have had to give way to the pressure from the industry to remove it. Everybody appreciates that we cannot take one section of the industry which thinks it is advantaged by the present system, and continue to give some control there with some subsidy—for it is only the subsidy which goes with the control which is of any advantage to them—while leaving the rest of the industry completely free.
We are trying to do all we can to help It has been said that we have done nothing constructive at all, although as hon. Member did mention the Inshore


Fishing Act under which we have made grants to the tune of £513,686 to the inshore fishermen in Scotland to help them with boats and gear. It is true we do not have the same demands on that scheme now, so that the amount of money we are setting aside for the scheme is rapidly running down. We appreciate that there is anxiety in this industry, and probably rightly so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers concerned have had regard to the difficulties of the industry in Aberdeen. As has been made clear, we set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to report. They have just reported, and we are examining the report very urgently.
The other day my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food received a deputation, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Banff, and I was at the meeting. We listened with great sympathy to what the men had to say. It was impossible to give them an assurance that steps would be taken immediately to deal with the difficulties, but we did give them an assurance that we were not without sympathy, that we would watch the position very carefully and that if it were open to us and it were found to be necessary to take steps to protect the industry from any serious depression, we would not hesitate to take those steps.
We said at the same time, however, that we thought that they might give the free market a trial run. We doubted very much whether things would be as serious as they thought. We now find that the price of fish has gone up very considerably. The hon. Member for Banff said that fish was only twice its pre-war price, but I find that in 1949 the average price per cwt. for fish landed from the inshore fishing industry was 48s. 7d., whereas in 1938 it was 23s. 5½d. Income is almost four times what it was before the war.

Mr. Stewart: On those figures it is only double.

Mr. Fraser: The price is double but with the same number of fishermen, double the quantity of fish has been landed, so that the income for fishermen is just about four times—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is true. With just over 5,000 full-time fishermen in 1938 and the same number in 1949, 907,000 cwt. of fish was landed in 1949 as against

453,000 in 1938; that is, double the amount of fish and double the price for the fish, so that the income per fisherman employed is four times what it was in 1938. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that herring fishermen got 12s. a cran before the war; they are not asked to accept anything like such a low figure now. The industry does, however, give us some cause for anxiety, and we are watching the position very carefully.

Mr. Edward Evans: Before my hon. Fried sits down, may I ask is it not a fact that if the transport levy were reimposed, the Scottish industry would be subsidised by the English section of the industry paying for it?

Mr. Stewart: We are now penalised.

POST-WAR CREDITS

4.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I realise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are running a little behind the schedule arranged by the Chair and also that he who, on an Adjournment Motion, introduces the subject of post-war credits has to tread with even greater delicacy than that attributed to Agag in Holy Writ. There is always the danger of entering into the sphere of legislation, and we are also in the difficulty that last year when, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, an attempt was made to move Amendments on this subject, they were ruled out of Order—I have no doubt, perfectly correctly—by the then Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) on the grounds that they would impose a charge upon the Consolidated Fund.
I appreciate also that the Financial Secretary is this afternoon "cabined cribbed, confined" by the imminence of the Budget Statement. I shall, therefore, concentrate upon some criticisms of the working and effects of the existing law on this subject, and I would begin by reminding hon. Members of the intentions in his matter of post-war credits when they were first introduced, during the Budget of 1941, by the late Sir Kingsley Wood, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. These were his words:
I am proposing, therefore, that the extra tax which any individual will pay by reason


of the reduction in the personal allowances and earned income allowance will be offset after the war by a credit which will then be given in his favour in the Post Office Savings Bank. In other words, the individual citizen will have to pay the tax in full, but that part of the extra tax to which I have referred, while complying with our vital war-time necessities will constitute some provision for post-war difficulties and will, I hope, form an additional fund of post-war savings for himself and his dependants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1941; Vol. 370, c. 1329.]
Since then, certain steps have been taken. The Budget of 1946, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Town and Country Planning, provided, as hon. Members will recall, for the repayment of post-war credits in the case of men at the age of 65 and of women at 60 years of age, those being the old age pension qualifying ages. Since then, however, four years have elapsed.
When a Question was put to the Financial Secretary a few days ago, on 23rd March, he informed the House that:
The total amount of post-war credit outstanding is about £650 million.
That is, in 1950, nine years after the proposal's introduction. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The present rate of repayment is about £17 million a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2173.]
That is a solemn thought, because at this pace the last repayment will be made in the year of our Lord 1988. I think it is doubtful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you or I or any Member of the House now listening to me, will have the honour of being Members of this House at that date—1988.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us in another Parliamentary answer, that the £ fell in value by 3s. 4d. between 1945 and January of this year, which shows an average of ¾d. for every month that the present Government have been in office. I also notice that one of those learned statisticians who are able to walk at ease among permutations and combinations which certainly baffle me, and, I suspect, even cause difficulty to Financial Secretaries of the Treasury, has calculated that, if this steady rate of decline persists, the value of the £ in 1988 will be minus 12s. 3d. We must, therefore, in the interests of the holders of postwar credits hope that this descent will be arrested, and arrested very soon.
The present system of repayment is unsatisfactory and bristles with anomalies. The subject was debated more than once in the last Parliament. Concentration upon age as the criterion of repayment does present certain very obvious objections. If I may take those, one from each House of Parliament, whom I believe to be in receipt of the largest incomes, the noble Lord, Lord Nuffield, in another place, and the Prime Minister in this one, they, I imagine, must be in receipt of the largest net incomes in the country at the moment; and both have passed the qualifying age and have drawn their post-war credits. That system must, I think, be open to considerable criticism.
There is one obvious difficulty arising from it. It has been mentioned before, and it is worth referring to again now. It is the question of the clearing up of accounts after a person dies. He has included his post-war credit in his estate, and wills it to somebody who has to reach the ripe age of 65—or 60, in the case of a woman—before he can get the money. It obviously holds up the whole business of winding up a deceased person's estate.
This broad issue aroused a good deal of interest during the recent General Election. Indeed, hopes were raised on this subject, by a very important member of the Government, none other than the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was questioned on two occasions, so far as I can discover. One was at Plumstead on 9th February—not on this particular issue, but on one so near to it that I think it is worth while quoting what he said. I quote from the "Daily Telegraph" of the following day:
Questioned about Post Office savings and war savings, he said, 'If people are saving up and the time comes to spend, that is what they have saved up for. I have never said we were going to keep their savings.'
An admirable exposition of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman was again questioned at Woolwich on 16th February when the election campaign was at its height, and at the time when there was considerable speculation on just how it would go. The right hon. Gentleman, this time, was questioned specifically on the post-war credit issue, and he said:
I think there is a lot of discontent about it. The real question is inflation, and all sorts of financial problems we have had. I will certainly see that it is discussed and examined afresh once we are returned.


It is now a little more than a month since the General Election, and I ask the Financial Secretary: What is the result of the fresh examination? Has it, in fact, taken place? I think there is no doubt at all that thousands of votes were swayed by so important a declaration from so important a Minister, the effect of which, in common language, was: "Put us back and your money will be forthcoming."[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is not the slightest doubt that that would be the general interpretation placed upon it. The Government are still chasing the taxpayers, direct and indirect, for revenue. People cannot now escape their full liabilities, with the exception of certain wealthy heiresses provided for by the Government during the last Parliament, one of whom is said to have been relieved of Surtax to the tune of £40,000 per annum. Can nothing be done for the holders of post-war credits?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to indicate what remedy he is suggesting?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I do not know whether it is in Order to outline certain steps which I believe could be taken. I realise that there is here the delicate borderline upon legislation, but I was reaching the stage where I was about to suggest, in a very brief summary, three possible steps. The first is the issue of savings certificates against this liability. I do not think that the encashments would be particularly heavy. The second is the right to set off postwar credit certificates against taxation claims. The third—which I deliberately put last because it might be a formidable problem for the Government—is the funding of this amount of £650 million, which, I think, could be done today on a 3 per cent. basis.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Surely all or some of those methods would involve legislation. On this Motion the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to discuss matters which might involve legislation, or for which the remedy would be legislation.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I was very careful to say when I rose that I realised how difficult it was to discuss this subject without trespassing upon the

need for legislation. However, I would, with the greatest possible respect, point out that the funding of a debt requires no legislative action. A mere announcement by the Treasury that they are about to issue a funding loan does not require the consent of Parliament. I believe I am right in saying that. Of course, I realise that the Financial Secretary cannot give us any definite information at this moment without anticipating the Budget statement. I do not ask for that. But I do ask most urgently that the Chancellor shall deal with the subject during his Budget speech. As I explained earlier, on the last Finance Bill a detailed discussion was ruled out of Order. It is all the more important that the matter should be reviewed, and hon. Members given the Government's general conspectus about the future of post-war credits.
One hint fell during the last Parliament from the right hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall)—whose faithful service to the Treasury has been so churlishly rewarded—when he said in the country that post-war credits were being deliberately withheld by the Government against a future trade depression. I ask the Financial Secretary whether this is so. After all, the right hon. Member for the Colne Valley occupied that office at the time he said it. Is it really intended to lock up the people's money for a political emergency? I think the House is entitled to know. Let the Chancellor come out into the open on 18th April and tell us his intention. These post-war credits were intended as a nest-egg for the very period through which the country is now passing, and I ask the hon. Gentleman: What have the Government done with the people's money, and what are they going to do?

4.24 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: The speeches of hon. Members opposite, their pessimism about our financial affairs, and their constant taunts, at home and abroad, suggesting the financial bankruptcy of the country, contrast very strangely with their optimism when they get into the House of Commons and assume that the repayment of £650 million worth of post-war credits is a matter that can be dealt with without legislation, without even inquiry, and, indeed, in a few minutes in an Adjournment Debate. It is not surprising that Members opposite, who have promised more houses, actual


ownership of those houses, bigger pensions, better family allowances, and lower cost of food and lower taxation, should assume that the payment of post-war credits could also be made. They have promised them all and, at the same time, have warned the Government that stern measures were necessary to impress our economic condition on the people.
It was a very pressing demand during the election. I found, on almost every platform, that people were demanding the payment of post-war credits. They were also asking for houses, the payment of family allowances for the first child, lower prices, reduced taxation and higher wages. It reminded me of the demands of my children at various times when they all wanted something at once and I had to keep telling them that they would have to wait their turn. I noticed that the Tory Party promised everybody something immediately.
I wonder if there could be an examination of the post-war credits situation. I know that, hitherto, it has been said that repayment would create inflation, but the Economic Survey reveals a 2½ per cent. increase in productivity. That 2½ per cent. represents some £400 million in actual cash. There are so many of us who wish for many things out of that £400 million that one hesitates to put forward post-war credits as a priority, but I know that in my constituency the National Assistance Board are now paying out a good deal of money that they would not have to pay if the recipients had access to their own money, namely, their post-war credits. A certain amount of this money is being paid at the National Assistance Board's offices to people who originally hesitated, very much to apply, and who, if they could have their post-war credits would not apply at all. Therefore, the plea of the Treasury that we cannot afford the money does not apply in this instance, because the money is being paid out of a different fund.
There are other cases, such as allowances to widows and young men who are getting married and who have tied round their necks credits from firms for furniture. This would not be necessary if they had access to their post-war credits. I ask the Treasury to examine this question, and I hope my hon. Friend will try to devise a scheme whereby people might have some kind of access to their post-war credits.

4.30 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): As the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has said, I am "cabined, cribbed, confined," first, by the rules of Order, second, by the imminence of the Budget and, third, by the clock. I cannot lengthily reply to the hon. and gallant Member, but I would like to deny immediately that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has, in his speeches, ever gone so far as to promise any release of post-war credits. What he did say was that the matter would be re-examined after the Election. I can assure the House that that has already been done, and that we have given a good deal of thought to this question.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the origin of post-war credits was the conception that some Income Tax paid during the war would be withheld until after the war and released at a suitable time. It was not, of course, a case of a loan from the public to the Exchequer. This was taxation which was actually paid and which the Government undertook that they would repay at a later date. The intention always was that when the expected post-war depression or deflation set in it would be valuable from the national point of view, to have these additions to purchasing power, as well as to savings from the personal point of view. It has happened that, owing to our unexpected success in maintaining full employment over the last five years, the expected deflation has never arisen.
To some extent, therefore, the difficulty is one of the handicaps which have attended on our success. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that there was something rather improper in arguing that the date and rate of release of these credits might partly depend upon the arrival of a trade depression or different economic conditions. He may have forgotten that his own party manifesto at the General Election said, quite clearly, that any large and rapid release of these credits would be highly inflationary. With that judgment I agree; and it might apply to one or two of the practical suggestions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made, and which I regret,


for reasons of Order, I cannot pursue in any very great detail.
There is a good deal in favour of the practical compromise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning devised. He laid it down, by legislation, that these credits should be paid to a man on reaching the age of 65 and to a woman upon reaching the age of 60. That successfully solved the problem of making a start in the release of these credits without letting loose a flood of inflationary purchasing power. It also has the advantage of holding these credits as savings until roughly—admittedly, roughly—the age at which most of us retire from active work, and of then making them available. It has also avoided what would have been a real injustice if no repayment had been made for 10 or 15 years, when a large number of people would have died without receiving any of their credits at all.
At present, we are paying out about £17 million a year and although that is a small proportion of £600 million, nevertheless, in all the circumstances, I do not think it can be regarded as a negligible sum. I would like to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I will convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer his wish that this subject should be mentioned in the Budget speech. I do not think I can pursue much further his practical suggestions, although at the right time many interesting things could be said about them. I believe that for the moment, and in all the circumstances, we have devised the best possible practical compromise by sticking to the system of releasing these credits at the ages of 65 and 60 respectively.

IRONSTONE WORKINGS, NORTHANTS

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: When as a local councillor I first addressed a public meeting 11 years ago I thought it would be impossible to have to face a more terrifying situation, but I realise now that the impossible has happened; and in the most unfortunate circumstances, because I feel that in order to make way for our place on the timetable the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not deal at the length at

which he would have done with the important subject which has just been discussed. I am fortified to some extent in that I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) would rather have actions and not words from the Financial Secretary on that subject. I feel that one of the conditions of speaking the truth is that one does not have to remember what one has said, and I feel that that is what I am going to do this afternoon about a subject which has already claimed support from all sides of the House.
Everyone recognises the need for increased food production at home by helping and encouraging higher output from our home farms. It is common ground that to attain the great target of half as much again as before the war we must have help from marginal land and all the land in this country which is capable of yielding agricultural produce. My special plea today is that as much time, thought and effort as possible should be given to utilising and keeping in production thousands of acres of some of our best agricultural land which is at present being mutilated or threatened with mutilation by opencast mining, iron ore workings and the projected new towns.
It will be readily understood if this afternoon I confine myself to the despoliation as a result of the iron ore workings in Northamptonshire because these are included in my constituency in a very large measure and it is a matter of very great importance to our part of the country. The failure to restore the land after such workings in the past has resulted in a state of affairs which was clearly described in an article in "Picture Post" which said:
Slowly advancing death. These ravaged areas are deserts, so utterly dead and barren and forgotten.
That is the impression visitors to the devastated areas get, and I have a feeling that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will form a similar impression to the one described in that magazine when he makes his visit during the Easter Recess.
It has been estimated that in Northamptonshire at present five acres of land are being lost every week to these ironstone workings. This will get worse for there is an increasing demand for the


ore, and when it is known that it is expected that by 1953 the requirements for steel will be at least one-third as much again as they are today, it is commonsense that the iron ore workings are likely to increase in the same proportion. Therefore when it can be shown that the potential agricultural production is being unnecessarily damaged, it should then be realised that the volume of such damage is not remaining static but is getting greater every day and more vicious in its consequences.
While there may be some in the country—I know there are some—whose reaction to the problem is to question the very wisdom of allowing wholesale ore extraction at all in this country, claiming that better quality is available by means of imports and that to keep our ore in our own land may be a good reserve in case of crises such as war in the future, I am confining my argument this afternoon to the need for the Government to be insistent upon some system of extraction carrying the minimum of destruction with it and the compulsory restoration of the land as the work proceeds. Much restoration has been accomplished in the past, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman who will reply will not lay too much stress on the past because, in my constituency in particular we are concerned rather more with the future than with what has been left from the past. I know that owing to past methods of working a considerable accumulation of ravaged land is there to be seen. Much has been restored but too much has been left. I do not think that such accumulation was deliberate but that the full extent of the damage was not appreciated as methods of extraction were altered and mechanised extraction was speeded up and extended.
Whilst such an explanation is legitimate on past workings—and consequently I recognise that it may take some considerable time to decide how the accumulation of the past shall be dealt with and paid for—there can be no such excuse for any unnecessary damage arising from the present workings, or from those contemplated in the immediate future and beyond. For we do know now, and have known for some time, the fatal consequences which can accrue to our food production capacity and to the rural amenities in the areas concerned. That is there for all to see.
I suggest that there is a general line, both for the type of working and for the type of restoration that can be put in hand. It is that general line I would ask the Government to examine now whilst the workings are still going on. Firstly, while it is not a big part, underground mining should be encouraged wherever possible, for the timber props for such workings could be grown on the hills and dales, the relics of the past left over from past workings. I believe that afforestation on such land as this has proved to be more effective in many ways than on the level land adjoining it.
Secondly, the machinery used for surface excavation should be so regulated that methods leaving the least amount of damage be used wherever practicable. Here the choice can only lie between the drag line and the face shovel. The face shovel is the much more successful ore-getter, but it is also the greatest enemy to restoration. On the other hand, the drag line is capable of taking up and preserving the top-soil so that it can be used later on for getting the land back again into some sort of order. Because that can be done in that way, the drag line type of machine should have priority wherever possible. At the moment this machine is not coming into the iron ore workings as quickly as it should. It is being sent to other kinds of workings, and I suggest that the Government should give all possible help to speed up the delivery of the drag line machines and encourage their greater use at all times in these iron ore workings.
Thirdly, on the workings where only the damaging face shovel can be used, the only remedy is that special attention be given to restoration, and the method of restoration should be agreed before the extraction is allowed to begin.
So much for the workings and for the restoration having regard to the best type of working. The first and best is that which can be levelled completely and restored to permit all kinds of agricultural operation. That is where the topsoil has been replaced. This can be done on many more occasions than has been the case in the past if proper attention is given to this when extraction is being planned. The second is where the land can be levelled without the replacement of the topsoil, probably with a large amount of clay on the surface. This has been proved


to be suitable for arable cultivation but many years of heavy expenditure, of labour and fertilisation, will be needed before it can be made fully remunerative.
Here is a case where the Government should be prepared to give special help along the lines of the help they are giving to other marginal land because, when it has been rescued, it will be able to produce necessary and important products for this country for many years to come. The other is where it has been rough-levelled with soil and other materials, which can be restored to grass if attended to straight away. But there, if it is neglected for any length of time, the chance of bringing it back to cultivation will be lost. My plea is that where permission is given for extraction on ground of that sort there should be a plan for restoring the ground straight away.
The fourth and worst type to which I have referred is suitable only for afforestation, and even then it presents many great problems as regards making roads in it for the subsequent removal of timber there and the difficulties of fencing to avoid rabbit infestation and the control of weeds. I suggest that the use of the shovel should be kept to the absolute minimum, even at the cost of sometimes leaving seams untouched. That is the general line of working and restoration after the type of work has been supplied. It obviously brings up the important point of the cost of restoration to which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will give some time. The precise figures for this are difficult to obtain, although I cannot help feeling that the producers already on the job must know the answer. I hope that the information will be incorporated in the Government's statement which has been promised us often, but which has been so elusive that to my mind it is entitled to the title of "The Second Scarlet Pimpernel." It has been promised often, but nothing seems to have been heard or seen of it since.
Whatever the costs of restoration they should be borne in proportion by the Exchequer, which collects considerable revenue from royalties and tax on steel production in its various stages and on the steel producers who use the ore. This could be calculated on an increase in the cost per ton of ore, or steel and the amount wanted would be almost negligible

in the amount of steel produced today. In making a rough estimate of possible costs of restoration it could be said to vary between £50 and £500 per acre according to the depth worked and the choice of methods of extraction used, but I believe that the top figure which the hon. Gentleman may have in mind to mention later is quite exceptional and that the average cost per acre is likely to be in the region of £150 to £200, especially when a standardised method of restoration has been agreed upon and is under way. Even if we accept my figure, which, I recognise, can be questioned, that low figure is more than the value of the original land and it would be pointless to try to justify the cost only on land values.
My real argument is based on the permanent loss of agricultural land in this tiny over-crowded island where, already, we have only half an acre of agricultural land per head of population. Produce lost now is not just for one harvest but for ever, and we owe more to posterity than that, considering the bills we are passing on to posterity in other spheres. This argument, I feel, should bring overwhelming and energetic support to the hon. Gentleman's Department from the Ministry of Agriculture. Success in restoration will play a big part in bringing back necessary food supplies, and I would have thought he would have the unstinted support of the Minister of Food. I hope that this weighty support will come while the right hon. Gentleman retains the great popularity he has, if he still has it after the announcement of yesterday.
The final argument is that we ought to strive to avoid any worse amenities being brought to the rural areas. That brings in the Department of the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that the full backing of the newly-appointed Minister of Town and Country Planning, with all his rambling background, should not be in any doubt, nor that of the hon. Gentleman because his constituency verges on the problem and he must have had it in mind. In all the circumstances, it would not be inappropriate to bring in the Minister of Health as a first reserve. He proclaimed the other night that it was his wish to go down to history as the protector of the beauty of the English countryside. I assure him that by a little


homework in connection with this problem, he can go a long way towards attaining this laudable ambition.
I have presumed to introduce this list of Ministers who should fight hard in the interests of their own Departments for such a decision because most of the past indecision appears to have arisen because the Minister of Supply, thinking only of his own Department's requirements, has in the past carried more weight at Cabinet level than the ex-Minister of Town and Country Planning, who was more or less left to fight the battle alone. While we are awaiting the reports of the standing committees, I ask for some quick interim policy at once. I believe it is needed. We should insist now upon some standard of restoration even though it may be that it will later be slightly revised. To do that now will stop any further accumulation of this dead useless land of which we have far too much already. My plea to the Government is to act now in applying a standard for future ore extraction which will prevent this ugly sore in Northamptonshire from settling into a permanent, expensive national disfigurement.

4.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): It is the accident of an Adjournment Debate which provides me with the perhaps unusual privilege in the circumstances of congratulating the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) on his maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure to me as he is a neighbour of mines in Northamptonshire. I know that he will understand me when I say that I was not particularly pleased to hear that he had been returned for a neighbouring division, but I am delighted, having heard his maiden speech today, that he should have made it on this subject. He has made it with great emphasis and great clarity, and I hope that we shall hear him speak many times.
It was my privilege to meet the hon. Member in the Midlands during the war, when he was playing quite an important part in the local government of Darlaston and its surrounding area. Having a local government background myself, I feel that it must be that local government training which has enabled him to make that very effective maiden speech this

afternoon. It is equally true—and I say this although it is not usual to be provocative on the last Adjournment Debate before a Recess—that I am delighted with the hon. Member's speech, because if he goes on thinking in that way, it will not be long before he is on these benches.
I cannot resist saying that it is the Conservative policy of allowing exploitation by landlord, royalty owner and industrialist, over the last 50 years in particular, irrespective of its effects upon the countryside or the lives of the people, of of any other consideration, that has allowed this present situation to arise. Coming to Northamptonshire and its beauties, and having seen the spoliation of Northamptonshire, the hon. Member could also go back to the area around Darlaston, where again, unplanned and unrestricted industrialisation has meant a lack of amenity in the lives of the people in those areas which really has to be seen to be believed.
There are three sections, so to speak, to the problems which the hon. Member has raised. There are the old workings which have been worked out for anything up to 50 years, the existing workings, and the future workings. I must first make it quite clear that until the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there were no effective powers to deal with this problem. So the action of the last Labour Government gave, for the first time in the history of this country, an opportunity for the control of surface mineral workings. That opportunity was provided in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It is equally true that of the existing workings which are now being worked, 90 per cent. are operated under General Interim Development Order granted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which in fact gave the possibility of some measure of control of the actual workings, but gave no power at all in regard to restorations.
There is, however, the future. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there is the power in the granting of future concessions for operating to place restrictions or requirements on the development in regard to restoration. There have been discussions between the various interests concerned as to the general type of restriction that will be placed on those workings. They are not yet determined finally, but as was stated


by the previous Minister of Town and Country Planning from this Box, those restrictions will be effective. The real problem is—as has been suggested by the hon. Member—who is to pay? So far as the old workings are concerned, most of those who have made profits, out of royalties, or the land, or through the production of the steel, may have passed on, and we may have to have some special arrangements with regard to them.
I do not think—and, here again, perhaps I am speaking with some prejudice because my own constituency has been badly scarred by these workings—that these old workings can be left in their unsightly condition just because it will cost a considerable amount of money to restore them. We must think of some way in which contributions can be made to the restoration of old workings. The previous Minister made a promise to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Michison), who has pressed this matter in this House over the past five years, that he would produce a White Paper. When my right hon. Friend and I arrived at our present posts we found a draft of that White Paper ready for our consideration. But the present Minister quite

rightly felt that in association with that White Paper there should be a statement of policy. The problem has been stated many times and it is the policy to handle it which should be made clear. The Minister felt he would like to see something of the problem at first hand and he and I are making a tour of Northamptonshire, Rutland and Leicestershire, and if possible parts of Lincolnshire, to see this problem and discuss it with all interested parties. In the light of the departmental advice given to us, we hope to make a statement to the House in the form of a White Paper as early as possible.
I conclude as I opened by complimenting the hon. Member on his maiden speech. I hope we shall have his enthusiastic support in dealing with this problem. We shall be brought hard up against some vested interests, and I am delighted to think that we should have his support in order that we may find a remedy for this problem, from which the countryside has suffered for so very long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute to Five o'Clock, till Tuesday, 18th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.